OCL INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) CASE of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh. Opposite Party No. 5 made an application on 1.9.1977 to the petitioner company for being appointed as Mazdoor declaring his age to be 35 years. He was appointed on temporary basis on the said day. He was sent for medical examination on 1.9.1977 and the Medical Officer also assessed his age to be 35 years which was not disputed by the Opposite Party No. 5. Accordingly, in official records of the petitioner company, age of the petitioner was recorded as 35 years on the date of entry into service. The petitioner was due for retirement on superannuation in the year 2000 and 50 days before his retirement on 12.7.2000 he made a representation to the petitioner company to requesting it to change his date of birth as mentioned in the records of the company. Said representation was not allowed and the Opposite Party No. 5 was superannuated on the basis of the age mentioned in the records of the petitioner company. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 5 raised a dispute on the basis of which conciliation was held and conciliation having failed, a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer before the State Government. The State Government in its order dated 15.7.2002 in Annexure 5 referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Sambalpur for adjudication and the schedule of reference runs as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 5 opposed the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that if there is some mistake in the reference made by the State Government, it is always open for the State Government to correct such mistake and for correction of such mistake appearing in the reference the State Government has ample power. So far as the second prayer of the petitioners is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 5 that the Opposite Party No. 5 is a retired poor workman and if the dispute case is adjudicated at Rourkela it will be convenient for him to attend Court, whereas attending Court at Sambalpur will be expensive for him. Since the petitioner company is in no way prejudiced because of such transfer, prayer for quashing Annexure 7 should not be entertained.