R. Kantha Rao, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed in the respondents' Company as badli filler on 19.7.1981. He secured promotions and ultimately he was working as EP Operator at JK OC, Yellandu area on the date of his proposed retirement. The version of the petitioner is that he studied upto 10th Class (failed) and he produced a copy of the School Leaving Certificate dated 25.1.1979 issued by the Head Master at the time of his initial appointment wherein his date of birth was recorded as 7.2.1963. He was under the bona fide impression that the same date of birth which is recorded in the 10th Class (failed certificate) was mentioned in the service records and he would retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation basing on the date of birth which was recorded as 7.2.1963 in the said certificate.

(i) It is submitted by the petitioner that there was a wrong description of his father's name as Khaja Moinuddin instead of Khajamiya which was recorded in his educational certificates. He applied on 28.7.1992 to the respondents' Company to correct his father's name by enclosing notarized affidavit as per procedure and his father's name was corrected on the representation. It is further submitted that to his utter surprise, one year advance notice dated 13.5.2014 for retirement was issued to him by the company stating that as per the company records he would attain the age of superannuation on 26.6.2015 and he shall retire on 1.7.2015. On that he submitted representations to the respondents stating that as per the Transfer Certificate, dated 25.1.1979, his date of birth was recorded as 7.2.1963. These certificates were issued prior to the joining of his service with the respondents. The respondents after receiving the representation informed the petitioner that the competent authority approved his date of birth as 27.6.1955 and he will have to retire on 1.7.2015. The version of the petitioner is that there is no dispute about the fact that he studied upto 10th Class. The S.S.C. certificate was issued during October, 1982 and the said certificates such as Transfer Certificate dated 25.1.1979 and the copy of marks memo for April, 1979 issued by the Board clearly shows that his date of birth is 7.2.1963. The approval proceedings issued by the respondents dated 11.12.2014 were never served or informed to the petitioner, he made a detailed representation dated 10.11.2014 which was submitted on 31.12.2014 and requested the respondents to consider the date of birth recorded in the certificates which was issued prior to joining into service. The respondents did not consider the same and they were proceeding to retire him as per notice dated 13.5.2014.

(ii) Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in approving the petitioner's date of birth as 27.6.1955 instead of 7.2.1963 as on the date of appointment i.e., on 19.7.1981 as per the School Leaving Certificate dated 25.1.1979, marks memo of April, 1978, thereby seeking to retire from service on 27.6.2015 through one year advance notice dated 13.5.2014 for retirement, scheduled as 1.7.2015 with a view to depriving him to continue in service upto 6.2.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules of the respondents company and also in violation of Articles 14 and 19of the Constitution of India, consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service upto 6.2.2023 duly correcting the date of birth as 7.2.1963 and to pass necessary orders.

2. The respondents filed counter-affidavit contending inter alia as follows:

(i) The petitioner comes under the definition of 'workman' under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he got an efficacious and alternative remedy by raising a dispute under the said Act and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. A