EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MOONIDIH COAL WASHERY UNDER MOONIDIH AREA OF BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the instance of the respondent-workman Reference No. 220/2001 was made for adjudication, whether the action of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in not accepting 1948 as year of birth of the workman was legal and justified. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal answered the reference vide award dated 28.08.2009 in favour of the workman. The petitioner namely, Management of Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has challenged award dated 28.08.2009. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the respondent-workman was appointed on 31.01.1973 however, at that time his age was not assessed. In the year, 1976 the age of the respondent was determined and it was recorded in Form B, as 28 years in 1976. However, on the pretext that NEIS and EDP records maintained at Koyla Bhawan, BCCL disclosed the age of workman as 01.07.1940, a notice of superannuation with effect from 01.07.2000 was issued to the respondent-workman. After examining the record when it was found that in Form B register of Muraidih Colliery, the date of birth of the workman was recorded as 31.01.1945, the workman was allowed to resume duty. The respondent superannuated on attaining 60 years of age on 01.02.2005. Aggrieved by the decision of Date of Birth Committee which confirmed 31.01.1945 as date of birth of the workman, an industrial dispute was raised. After failure of conciliation proceeding, Reference dated 27.09.2001 was made which was answered in favour of the workman.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that finding of the Date of Birth Committee is a question of fact which cannot be interfered by the Tribunal. The Committee after examining all the documents, confirmed the date of birth of the workman as 31.01.1945. It is submitted that at the fag end of his service, the respondent-workman has raised a dispute as to his date of birth which should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that though the workman has failed to plead and produce evidence that he was not gainfully employed between period 01.02.2005 01.07.2008, the direction to pay all consequential benefits including, back wages to the workman, is definitely not sustainable in law. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Workman supports the award dated 28.08.2009 and submits that the Tribunal has held that workman was illegally and arbitrarily stopped from duty with effect from 01.02.2005 and therefore, the workman has been held entitled for all consequential benefits including, back wages.