The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Staff Retirement (Minimum Benefit) Scheme and the binding effect of the scheme on the workman, as well as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in deciding the dispute.

ORDER :

I.A. Ansari, J.—By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, as a workman, has approached this Court with prayer, inter alia, to issue writ/writs setting aside and quashing the award, dated April 21, 1997, passed by the learned Labour Court of Assam, at Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No. 13/94 (Management of Jalannagar (South) Tea Estate, Dibrugarh v. Their Workman Shri Binda Prasad Singh) and commanding the respondent No. 2, namely, the Management of Jalannagar (South) Tea Estate to make available all such service benefits to the petitioner, which he would have enjoyed being in service till January 25, 1995, if he would have been allowed to continue to remain in service till attaining the age of 60 years.

2. The essential facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are not in dispute and the same may in a nutshell be put as under:

In the service record of the Management petitioner's name stood recorded as Shri Binda Singh and not as Binda Prasad Singh. By order, dated September 17, 1955 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) the petitioner was confirmed as clerk, at Baughpara Division of Jalannagar (South) Tea Estate, Dibrugarh. An agreement, dated November 18, 1970 (Annexure F to the writ petition) was reached between the Assam Tea planters Association and Bharatiya Chah Parishad (Assam Branch), who represented the management of the Tea Estates, on the one hand, and the Chah Karmachari Sangha, who represented the workman, on the other hand. This agreement is known as "Staff Retirement (Minimum Benefit) Scheme". According to Clause 3 of this Agreement, the member of the Clerical staff shall, normally, retire on attaining the age of 58 years unless his/her service is extended by the management, provided, however, that the extension over 60 years of age shall not, normally, be granted. This agreement came into force on November 1, 1970. Acting upon this agreement, respondent No. 2 i.e. the Management of the said Tea Estate sent a letter, dated November 15, 1991 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) informing the workman that he would attain the age of 58 years during January, 1992 and that he would be retired from service with effect from February 01, 1991. The petitioner wrote back to the respondent No. 2 a letter, dated November 16, 1991 (Annexure- C to the writ petition) informing the Management i.e. the respondent No. 2 that as per Admit Card of the High School Examination Board, he had appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination of Bihar Schools Examination Board in April, 1954 and his date of birth, as recorded in the Admit Card, was January 25, 1935 and that he would accordingly reach the age of 58 years on January 25, 1993 and not in January, 1992. The petitioner also added in this letter that the date of birth, which had disclosed earlier to the Management was probably without consulting the original High School Leaving Examination Admit Card, which was lying at his home at Muzaffarpur in Bihar. However, as per Clause 11(1) of the said agreement (Annexure-F to the writ petition), the age of the workman entered into his service record or P.F. record shall be deemed to be his correct age. Acting upon this agreement, the Management i.e. respondent No. 2 afore-mentioned had written, a letter as far back as on November 27, 1972 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) informing the workman that in order to fully compile his service records and to make the same up to date, he was required to furnish necessary information sought for in the proforma given below in the said letter itself. The petitioner, as a workman, had filled up this proforma and submitted the same to the management. According to the information furnished in this proforma, the petitioner was born in January, 1934, and not on January 25, 1935 (as later on, contended by him) and that he had appeared for matriculation examination in 1951 and not in 1954 (as later on, contended by him) from Dwarka Nath H.E.