1. The Petitioner-Maharashtra State Electricity Board challenge the orders passed by the Labour Court, Satara and the Industrial Court, Satara allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent and declaring that the order of retirement of the Respondent with effect from 31 January 1998 were illegal and the Respondent deemed to have retired on 31 July 2001, with further direction to pay the monetary benefits to the Respondent.

2. The Respondent joined the services of the Petitioner-Board on 6 February 1968 as a 'helper.' Thereafter, he was working as a ‘Lineman.’ In 1993, he was promoted as 'Line Foreman.' He was drawing basic salary of Rs.3,480/-p.m. His service record showed his date of birth as 4 January 1940. On 14 December 1987, a letter was issued to the Respondent by the Executive Engineer of the Petitioner for verification of his birth date. It was stated that after perusal of the service record, it was noticed that the date of birth of the Respondent was not attested and for that purpose, within 8 days, the Petitioner should produce his school leaving certificate. It was also mentioned that service book did not contain the school leaving certificate, which needed to be on record. Another letter was issued by the Executive Engineer, Satara dated 25 May 1989 reminding the Respondent to produce school leaving certificate. On 20 September 1989, the Executive Engineer of Satara informed the Respondent to remain present in the office of the Establishment Superintendent on 22 September 1989 in respect of verification of his date of birth. The Respondent produced his school leaving certificate and his date of birth in the service record was changed from 4 January 1940 to 1 July 1943. There was an endorsement to that effect i.e. 3 November 1989 by the Establishment Superintendent that the entry was corrected as per the transfer certificate of Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Vidhya Mandir, Sandur. On 5 July 1991, the Executive Engineer, Satara informed the Respondent that no further correspondence will be entertained as the entry in the service record has now been confirmed as 1 July 1943 based on the school leaving certificate. Nothing further was communicated to the Respondent after this letter dated 5 July 1991.

3. By the said letter dated 5 July 1991, the Respondent was informed that pursuant to the process of attestation, the date of birth has been finalised as 1 July 1943. As per the earlier date of birth i.e. 4 January 1940, the date of superannuation of the Respondent was 31 January 1998. Fifteen days before this date, the Respondent received a letter dated 15 January 1998 from the Head Office of the Petitioner informing him that the date of birth has to be treated as 4 January 1940 which has been counter-signed by the Respondent and no correction in the service record was permitted by the Petitioner and accordingly, the Respondent was due to retire on 31 January 1998. The Respondent filed a Complaint (ULP) No.11 of 1998 immediately on 19 January 1998. Interim relief was not granted and the complaint proceeded on merits.

4. In the Labour Court, the Petitioner-Board examined its witness. The Respondent examined himself and the concerned official from the school, in support of the school leaving certificate. The parties produced documentary evidence. The Labour Court held that as per the school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the Respondent was 1 July 1943, and not 4 January 1940. The Labour Court also held that it was not the Respondent who initiated change of service record but the Petitioner called upon the Respondent to produce the record to attest the entry and this procedure was going on for 2 to 3 years. The Labour Court held that after this procedure was carried out, the entry was confirmed as 1 July 1943. The decision of the Head Office to treat the date of birth as 4 January 1940 was taken without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Respondent. As regards the contention of the Petitioner that