SANDOZ INDIA LTD Vs. SANDOZ INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has challenged an Award dated August 25, 1995 made by the Industrial Court, Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No. 829 of 1993 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE first Respondent joined the service of the First Petitioner (which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Petitioner') as a Male Operator Grade IV on November 2, 1961. At the time of joining service, he had declared that he was born in the year 1934 and accordingly the year of his birth was entered in his service record as 1934. Since the exact date of birth was not available, consistent with its practice, the Petitioner took the date of birth as June 30, 1934. Consequently, the First Respondent's date of birth was entered in the record as June 30, 1934. The First Respondent was confirmed in service on May 2, 1992 at which time he was enrolled as a Member of the Provident Fund Scheme under the provision of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. At that time he was required to give a declaration giving his personal particulars and the First Respondent declared his age to be 28 years as on November 1, 1962. The said declaration was made under the signature of the First Respondent and forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the Authority implementing the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. The First Respondent also gave a similar declaration to the Authority under the Employees' State Insurance Act and declared his year of birth as 1934. Some time in the year 1967, the First Respondent got married and changed the nomination in the Provident Fund Records in favour of his wife. At that time also the First Respondent filled up an appropriate form in which he declared that his year of birth was 1934.

(3.) THE workmen in the service of the Petitioner are governed by Settlements which prescribe the age of superannuation as 60 years. On the basis of the records maintained by the Petitioner Company, the First Respondent was due to retire from service on June 30, 1994. On November 6, 1990 the First Respondent addressed a letter to the Petitioner Company seeking a change in his date of birth recorded in the records of the Petitioner Company on the ground that his birth certificates had just become available from his Church, contending that his date of birth as recorded in the records of the Petitioner Company was incorrect. Along with his letter dated November 6, 1990, the First Respondent enclosed a xerox copy of the purported Certificate of Birth and Baptism dated May 25, 1989 in which it was stated that one John Valente, son of Xavier Valente, was born on February 6, 1936. In view of the discrepancy in the name, which the Petitioner Company did not consider having been satisfactorily explained, the Petitioner Company refused to accede to the request for change in the date of birth of the First Respondent. The Petitioner Company addressed a letter dated December 14, 1990 to the First Respondent and rejected the request made by the First Respondent that his date of birth be corrected to February 6, 1936 on the basis of the Certificate of Birth and Baptism issued by Our Lady of Rosary Church, Malvan. By the said letter the First Respondent was specifically informed that his date of birth June 30, 1934. As recorded in the Petitioner's record would remain unchanged.