SHIV SHANKAR SINGH SON OF LATE MUNESHWAR SINGH Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for setting aside the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the management, whereby the respondent even after accepting the date of birth of the petitioner as 06.04.1954 made the petitioner to accept a condition wherein he agreed to retire on 31.10.2013 even before attaining the age of 60 years and for quashing letter dated 14.05.2013 whereby the project officer Alkusa Colliery issued an order directing the petitioner to retire by 31.10.2013 and also for direction upon the petitioner to allow the petitioner till the completion of his statutory age of superannuation and extend all consequential benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per matriculation certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.04.1954 but due to wrong entry made in the petitioner's service excerpts and NEIS as 06.04.1952, the petitioner was made to retire on 30.04.2012. It has further been submitted that petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, Dhanbad, who in turn while dealing with the matter sent the matriculation certificate for verification before Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, which sent a report wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.04.1954 and in such view of the matter, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad directed respondents to do the needful treating his date of birth as shown in the matriculation certificate. But, in the meantime, the petitioner under the duress was forced to sign a memorandum of settlement wherein the petitioner was forced to withdraw all age dispute matter from every Court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no provision in the service condition or in the national coal wages agreement contemplating a workman to continue in service for 42 years or till attaining the age of 60 years. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Hari B.P Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in L.P.A. No. 397 of 2015 and also in the case of Sri Lerha Harijan Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in W.P (S) No. 7052 of 2011.

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application by advancing an argument that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal, which he can raise before Industrial Tribunal. On the merit of the case, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of joining the services, the petitioner never submitted matriculation certificate hence, the date of birth recorded in all statutory forms of the company has binding effect. Furthermore, it is the petitioner, who voluntarily agreed to enter into a settlement to bring the end to Industrial Dispute and agreed to forgo the back wages for the idle period and such agreement/settlement between the parties has binding effect and each party has to go by the settlement. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents referred to a decision rendered in the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Jagpal Singh Tyagi, 2005 8 SCC 49.