STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. R. No. 2819 of 1983 Chulhanram v. The Industrial Court, MP. and Ors. M. P. No. 3138 of 1986; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Industrial Court and Ors. M. P. No. 3139 of 1986; B. K. Chak-raborty v. Industrial Court, Indore and Anr. These petitions are disposed of by a common order as they involve similar questions.

(2.) THIS is petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order of the Labour Court, dated 9. 8. 1982, Annexure-J, and the order of the Industrial Court dated 27. 5. 1983, An-nexure-K, in M. P. No. 3138 of 1986 similar orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, Annexure-K and Annexure-I, respectively, have been challenged. In M. P. Nos. 2819 of 1983 and 3139 of 1986 the 2 pe-titioners-Chulhanrarm and B. K. Chakraborty have claimed the payment of full back wages.

(3.) WE take up first M. P. No. 3137 of 1986. The necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are : The respondent No. 3. Chulhanram was appointed as a shunting porter in the Bhilai Steel Plant at Bhilai in the year 1958. At that time he disclosed his date of birth (on 16. 10. 1958) as 28. 1. 1924 which was recorded in his Service Roll and which was duly signed by him, vide Annexure-A. In the year 1961 the respondent No. 3 had submitted a duly attested copy of the School Leaving Certificate, dated 21. 12. 1961 issued by the Head Master of the Junior Basic Primary School, Mahua, Distt. Ajamgarh (U. P.) in which his date of birth was shown as before to be 28. 1. 1924 vide Annexure-B. In the year 1973 the respondent No. 3 had submitted an application for admission to the Contributory Fund among with a Declaration and Nomination as required by the rules of the Provident Fund, wherein he again declared his date of birth as 28. 1. 1924. The respondent No. 3 had duly signed the said application which was attested by the witnesses, vide Annexure-C. For the years 1968 to 1974 and onward final gradation list was published by the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the respondent No. 3 was always shown as 28. 1. 1924 and the respondent No. 3 had never disputed the correctness of his date of birth and had never raised any objection regarding the same. The Standing Order No. 39 of the Standing Orders (Plant), which are duly certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, prescribes the superannuation age of an employee to be 58 years. Accordingly, the petitioner, by its order dated 12. 8. 1981 Annexure-D, communicated to the respondent No. 3, that he was due to retire on 27. 1. 1982 on reaching the age of superannuation. Then the respondent No. 3 for the first time, wrote to the petitioner, vide his letter dated 27. 8. 1981 Annexure-E, that his actual date of birth was 28. 1. 1930 The petitioner rejected the application on 4. 9. 1981 vide Annexure-F, and the respondent No. 3 was retired on 27. 1. 1982. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 approached the Labour Court, Durg, which by its impugned order dated 9. 8. 1982 Annexure-J, ordered that the respondent No. 3, be reinstated and his full back wages be paid to him. The petitioner appealed to the Industrial Court, Indore, challenging the order of the Labour Court. The Industrial Court, by its impugned order Annexure-K dated 27. 5. 1983 dismissed the appeal and further ordered that back wages from 3. 1. 1982 to 15. 9. 1982 are not payable to the respondent No. 3 and from 15. 9. 1982 only 75% of the average wages till its order were payable to him. It is the impugned Annexures-J and K which are under challenge in this petition. In M. P. No. 819 of 1983, the petitioner Chulhanram has sought modification of the impugned order, Annexure-K and has claimed full back wages.