KRISHNA CHANDRA ROUT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the findings in the award dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 41 of 1993 under Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the learned Presiding Officer directed payment of compensation of a consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner instead of full back wages and other service benefits.

(2.) The case has left a long trail behind as the Petitioner was before this Court twice earlier in OJC No. 1321 of 1982 and OJC No. 827 of 1987. Facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner joined as a work-charged employee in the erstwhile Rourkela Steel Plant, at present, 'SAIL, Rourkela', in the year, 1959. In 1960, the Petitioner's service was regularized. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the year, 1981 when the service datas of the employees of the steel plant were computerized, his date of birth in his service record has been mentioned as 10.7.1924 instead of 15.8.1929. In 1981, the Petitioner made a representation to the management along with a copy of the School Leaving Certificate of Fatepur School and prayed for a correction of his date of birth to 15.8.1929. On 11.12.1981, the management issued a charge-sheet for commission of misconduct against the Petitioner for having submitted an un-genuine or forged School Leaving Certificate. On 18.12.1981, the Petitioner submitted a show cause asserting that the School Leaving Certificate is genuine. The management, however, without considering the show cause initiated a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. On 11.3.1982, during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, a notice was served on the Petitioner that he would be superannuated with effect from 9.7.1982. The Petitioner challenged the said notice before this Court in OJC No. 1321 of 1982. An interim order was passed staying operation of the said notice. After receipt of the order of stay, the management kept the order of superannuation in abeyance and a second show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner to explain regarding his actual date of birth. Subsequently, the order of superannuation was withdrawn for which the writ petition became infructuous and was dismissed as such. On 26.11.1982, the Petitioner filed a show cause reply on which the management without correcting his date of birth initiated a second departmental proceeding to conduct an enquiry for determination of his actual date of birth. After conclusion of both the proceedings, a report was submitted indicating that the actual date of birth of the Petitioner is 10.7.1924 and accordingly, the Petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 31.3.1983. It is further alleged that immediately thereafter he made a petition to the management for reinstatement in service indicating that his actual date of birth is 15.8.1929 and the domestic enquiry has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. As no action was taken by the management, the Petitioner lodged a complaint before the Labour Forum. Conciliation having failed and a failure report having been submitted under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to the State Government, but no reference being made, the Petitioner again approached this Court in OJC No. 827 of 1987. By order dated 6.11.1922, this Court directed the State Government to reconsider the case of the Petitioner as per law. On 6.9.1993, a reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication. The learned Presiding Officer after hearing the case passed the award holding that the domestic enquiry has been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the actual date of birth of the Petitioner is 15.8.1929 and not 10.7.1924, but, however, finding that there is no scope for reinstatement of the Petitioner, as by the date of the award even calculating his age from 15.8.1929, he would have retired, directed in the award to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of back wages. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that since the Petitioner has been superannuated for no fault of his, there could not have been any embargo on the part of the Presiding Officer to grant full back wages and any other service benefits to which he would have been entitled to, had he continued till the date of superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years by taking his date of birth as 15.8.1929. According to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner would have retired on 31.8.1987 and therefore, he has been deprived of his wages from 31.3.1983 till 31.3.1987.