Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 2265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
N.W. Sambre, J.
The Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Jagannath Raghoji Sonwane - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2670 of 2001
Decided On : 11.12.2014
For the Appellant :Kalpalata Bharaswadkar, Advocate
For the Respondents:B.B. Yenge, Advocate
The judgment established the principle that correction of date of birth at the fag end of service cannot be granted, and the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Date of Birth Correction - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Circular dated 28th December 1982 - Sections 44, 56(a) of Fundamental Rule - The court discussed the issues of maintainability of the complaint, victimization, and entitlement for relief. The court found in favor of the employee, declaring the correct date of birth as 1st September 1945 and ruling the retirement notice as illegal. The court also considered the limitation for the complaint and the evidence in the Provident Fund record. The Industrial Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court, and the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Corporation, stating that the employee's claim was moved at a belated stage and was not sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The employee sought correction of his date of birth and challenged the notice of superannuation. The Labour Court declared the correct date of birth as 1st September 1945 and ruled the retirement notice as illegal. The Industrial Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court, and the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Corporation, stating that the employee's claim was moved at a belated stage and was not sustainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the employee, declaring the correct date of birth as 1st September 1945 and ruling the retirement notice as illegal. The court also considered the limitation for the complaint and the evidence in the Provident Fund record. The Industrial Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court, and the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Corporation, stating that the employee's claim was moved at a belated stage and was not sustainable.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the complaint, victimization, and entitlement for relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled in favor of the employee, declaring the correct date of birth as 1st September 1945 and ruling the retirement notice as illegal. The court also considered the limitation for the complaint and the evidence in the Provident Fund record. The Industrial Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court, and the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Corporation, stating that the employee's claim was moved at a belated stage and was not sustainable.
Final Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Corporation, stating that the employee's claim was moved at a belated stage and was not sustainable.
N.W. Sambre, J.
1. This petition is tagged with Writ Petition No. 612 of 2002, perhaps having regard to the similarity to the issue involved. The Writ Petition No. 612 of 2002 is not assigned to this Court. As such, the said matter be de-tagged and be placed before the Bench taking up 2002 matters. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, this petition is pending since 2001, It was adjourned from time to time and by way of last chance, this Court on 4th December 2014, adjourned it by one week. Today, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is present, however, the learned Counsel for the respondent is absent. In view of the pendency of this petition since 2001 and the fact that the last chance in the matter was already granted, this petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. Heard Mrs. Kalpalata Bharaswadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. The present petition takes an exception to the order passed by the learned Judge, First Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) Nos.103/1999 and 11/2001 which came to be allowed by a common judgment dated 12th February 2001 which was confirmed by the Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision (ULP) No. 16/2001 at the behest of the petitioner,
4. The respondent herein was in the employment of the petitioner as a Labour. In Complaint (ULP) No. 103/1999, which was filed on 13th February 1999, directions were sought by the present respondent to carry out correction in his date of birth and consequently, to the retirement date. According to the respondent, his correct date of birth is 1st September 1945, which was incorrectly recorded as 1st April 1941.
5. In Complaint (ULP) No. 11/2001, the challenge was raised by the respondent -employee to the notice of superannuation dated 26th December 2000 which put him on notice that he shall stand superannuated on 1st April 2001.
6. It was the claim of the present respondent before the learned Labour Court that he was initially engaged in the employment in the year 1969 as a casual labour and was conferred permanent status w.e.f. 1st April 1980. According to him, in the primary school record, his date of birth is recorded as 1st September 1945. He further claimed that in 1982-1983, he has moved the petitioner Corporation for correction of his date of birth and on 24th March 1996, by submitting an application to correct his date of birth to 1st September 1945 from 1st September 1941 by carrying out appropriate correction in his service book. According to him, as the petitioner -Corporation had continued with the old incorrect date of birth in the service record has prompted him to file the first complaint before the labour Court.
7. The second complaint is moved by the present respondent on the ground that he was sought to be superannuated on 1st April 2001 having regard to the incorrect date of birth, which according to him, amounts to victimise him by violating the rights of the employee.
8. The contentions of the respondent employee were resisted by the petitioner -Corporation by filing written statement at Exh. C-4 wherein objection was raised to the tenability of the complaint on the ground of limitation. Though it was admitted by the petitioner herein that the respondent joined services in 1969, it is claimed that he was made permanent in 1980. The petitioner further claimed that the date of birth of respondent employee was rightly recorded as 1st April 1941 and further submits that at no point of time, the respondent has taken steps for correcting his date of birth. According to petitioner, while entering into the employment, in the prescribed form of employees provident fund, in the year 1976, the respondent himself volunteered his date of birth as 1st April 1941 along with an affidavit disclosing his age as 36 years.
9. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Corporation, in the betterment of the employee, has relaxed the policy for correction of date of birth and invited applications for carrying out correction in dat
