IMPORTANT POINT
Where it is only after enjoying the benefits given to the workman and after availing the benefits, the workman raised a dispute about his date of birth after his retirement, the Labour Court fell in grave error in passing the award in favour of the workman by discarding the opinion and finding of the Medical Board.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 2—Industrial dispute with regard to age of workman—Maintainability—Workman was taken in service in year 1947—His age was assessed on his examination by the Medical Board—His date of birth was recorded as 1-11-1923—In 1960 a service card was issued to appellant by the Management wherein age of workman was recorded as 24 years—It was duly accepted by the workman by putting his signature—Only in 1972, for the first time, the workman produced a transfer certificate issued from the school, claiming his date of birth as 11-8-1929—After the age rectification committee took a decision the workman was examined by a specially constituted Medical Board in 1984 and his date of birth was assessed as 13-9-1926—His service record was corrected and his service was increased by 2 years—On superannuation in 1986, workman was given one year’s extension in service which was accepted by him—Workman retired on 13-9-1987—It was only after the retirement, wife of the workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to his age —Whether Labour Court was justified in passing an award in 1995 in favour of the workman—(No)—Labour Court fell in error in discarding opinion and findings of the Medical Board.
       Held : The Labour Court, in our opinion, fell in grave error in discarding the opinion and findings of the Medical Board merely on the ground that no medical officer of the Company who assessed the age of workman was examined nor any report of the Medical Board had been filed. Once the workman himself has accepted the opinion in the finding of the Medical Board and continued to work till 13.09.1986 and one year of extension thereafter there was no necessity for the Company to examine the Medical officer and/or to produce the report of the Medical Board. Moreover, the Medical Board examined the workman in 1984 and the Medical Officer who examined the workman may or may not have been in the service of the company.(Para 27)
       We have elaborately dealt with the events which led to the constitution of the Medical Board for determining the age of the workman. The workman did not challenge the opinion of the Medical Board constituted by the Management for determining the age of the workman and permitted the workman to work till his attaining the age of retirement. Therefore, the workman in the present case is estopped from challenging the correctness of the opinion of the Medical Board after his retirement. This apart, school leaving certificate which was produced by the workman was forwarded to the DEO, Dacca for verification who informed the Management that the certificate is not genuine. The workman was to superannuate in the year 1986 but on the basis of the assessment of age made by the Apex Medical Board, he was allowed to continue till 13.09.1987. At that stage, the workman did not challenge the decision of the Medical Board. It is only after enjoying the benefits given to the workman and after availing the benefits, the workman raised a dispute after his retirement in pursuance of which the Labour Court has passed the Award. The High Court has not given any undue credence to the evidence of the Management or wrongly relied upon the one-sided testimony of the Management as alleged by the appellant. We have already noticed that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court is nothing but perverse against the facts and passed the award in favour of the workman on totally mis-placed sympathy. In our opinion, both the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench are right and within their jurisdiction in re-assessing and re-valuing the weight of the evidence in the case recorded by the Labour Court by which the High Court came to the conclusion that the workman was not entitled to any relief. When the judgment of the Labour Court is perverse and against the facts and records, the High Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and to interfere with the perverse finding and set aside the same.(Para 31)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Article 226—Writ jurisdiction—Scope to interfere with finding of Labour Court—Held, when judgment of the Labour Court is perverse and against the facts and records, the High Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and to interfere with the perverse finding and set aside the same.(Para 31)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. The appellant - Seema Ghosh is the wife of late Nani Gopal Ghosh who joined the services of M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur. According to the appellant, the workman was born on 11.08.1929 which was duly recorded in the Admission Register of Naba Kumar High English School, Dacca, where he was a student from 23.01.1935 to 19.06.1942.

3. At the time of joining in the service, the workman informed the concerned department of the Management that his date of birth as 11.8.1929, but inadvertently the same was recorded as 01.11.1923 which he came to know long after. Subsequently and long after the workman joined the service, the concerned department of the Management obtained the signature of the workman on a printed proforma of service card. But in the said proforma, no particulars or date of birth was mentioned. This was on 14.04.1960. The workman could know of such error of record in the service record only when a new gate pass was issued to workman in the year 1972, for ingress and egress to and from the work place which for the first time had the date of birth of the workman concerned which, according to the appellant, was purportedly made on the basis of some erroneous entry made by some assistant/clerk of the Management earlier.

4. On 25.08.1972, the workman requested the concerned department of the respondent to correct the record and to thereby enter his actual date of birth as 11.08.1929 in place of 01.11.1923. The said workman was thereafter asked by Chief Personnel Manager of the Management to produce his School Leaving Certificate vide its letter bearing No. DPR/9801/72 by the pen of Chief Personnel Manager of the Management dated 30.10.1972. The workman in compliance of such request submitted the required certificate on 25.11.1972. After a long interval of 8 years of such submission of the School Leaving Certificate, the Director of Personnel & Industrial Relation of the Management, by his letter dated 20.11.1980 informed the workman that the School Leaving Certificate submitted by him was referred to the District Education Officer, Dacca for verification, who informed the Management that the certificate was not genuine and accordingly, the Management expressed inability to consider the request of the workman for age rectification. Upon fresh request made by the workman, the Headmaster of the very same school had issued certificate of the even date confirming that the workman - Nani Gopal Ghosh was a student of the Naba Kumar High English School, Dacca from 1935-1942 and that his date of birth as recorded in the School Admission Register was 11.08.1929.

5. The workman thereafter submitted a fresh certificate on 25.06.1984 issued by the Headmaster of Naba Kumar High English School, Dacca confirming the date of birth of workman as recorded in the admission register of the school as 11.08.1929. The said certificate was duly attested and endorsed by the then Ministry of Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Bangladesh and also the High Commissioner of India posted in Bangladesh at relevant time.

6. In view of the above circumstances, the workman once again requested the Management to rectify the error in the entry with regard to his service record regarding the date of birth and accordingly requested the Management to enter the correct date of birth of the workman as 11.08.1929. The Management did not respond to the said request of the workman and did not consider the effect of the fresh certificate dated 19.02.1984 and September, 1984. It is the case of the appellant that the entire procedure followed by the Management was clearly in violation of the norms/stipula tions in the works standing orders of the Management prepared and approved according to relevant legislation involved, which showed that the Management evidently acted according to its whims and fancies with no relevance to the industrial law.

7. The workman superannuate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 786

Cases Referred (1)