M P S R T C Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench has referred this case to us. The following question arises for consideration :--

(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution calls in question an order passed by the Industrial Court, Indore, directing reinstatement of Ramchandra (respondent ). Ramachandra originally had joined the service of the Gwalior northern India Transport Company. His date of birth was recorded as December 5, 1908. At the relevant time, he was employed as a Traffic Supervisor in the m. P. State Road Transport Corporation. The Divisional Manager by his letter dated June 9, 1969, ordered his retirement with immediate effect under regulation 59 on the ground that he had already attained the age of 58 years, which is the age of retirement under that regulation. The respondent challenged the order of his retirement contending that his date of birth is December 12, 1913. Secondly, Regulation 59 is inapplicable inasmuch as he was governed by the Standing Orders. For the date of his birth, he relied on his horoscope and also on the alleged interpolations in the records.

(3.) THE Labour Court directed his reinstatement and also allowed him one-fourth of the back wages. The Industrial Court also held that the Regulations had not been legally brought into force. It, therefore, maintained the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and further allowed full back wages. The Corporation has, by this petition under Article 226, challenged those orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. When this petition was placed before the Division Bench, it was of opinion that the question involved required a decision by a larger Bench.