ORDER :

Through Video Conferencing

Heard the parties

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Award dated 30.09.2016, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Ref. Case No. 20 of 2010, whereby it has been held that the action of the Management in prematurely superannuating the respondent-workman is not justified and the workman is entitled for full back wages along with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.06.2006 to his actual date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2010

3. It was the case of the workman before the learned Labour that he joined the services of Bokaro Steel Plant (for short “BSP”) as attendant on 08.06.1970 and in his personal data form he recorded his age as 20 years on the date of joining and as such, his date of birth is supposed to be 08.06.1950. It was the case of the workman that as per his aforesaid date of birth, his date of superannuation would be 31.05.2010. However, the petitioner-Management vide letter dated 24.12.2005 informed that workman that he is going to superannuate on 31.05.2006. It was the specific case of the workman that without issuance of any prior notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the workman, the management by manipulation has changed his date of birth and has tried to superannuate him 4 years prior to his actual date of superannuation. When workman came to know about such anomaly, he, through his Union, requested the petitioner-management for making correction in the date of birth and allow him to work till his actual date of superannuation i.e. till 31.05.2010 but no heed was paid to his said request.

Finding no other alternative remedy, the petitioner through his Union, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred vide notification dated 11.01.2010 to learned Labour Court, Bokaro, by framing following issue for adjudication:

“Whether pre-mature retirement of Sri H.N. Mishra, Staff No. 065921, Multi Skill Technician, HRCS Department, Bokaro Steel Plant by changing his advertised age by the Management is justified? If not, then what relief he is entitled to?”

4. Upon receipt of the notification, the learned Labour Court registered the case as Ref. Case No. 20 of 2010 and issued notices to the parties. Upon receipt of the notices, both parties appeared and filed their respective written statements. Thereafter, the learned Presiding Officer, after hearing the parties and perusing the documents and evidences brought on record, by its Award dated 30.09.2016, answered the Reference in favour of the respondent-workman, holding that:

“…………..Hence, I have no hesitation to say that the age so assessed or fixed by the management is not proper and hence not justified to retire him four years prior to his date of birth………………

…………….In these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the present case was filed at the fag end of career. Accordingly, the workman is entitled for full back wages along with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.06.2006 to his actual date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2010. ……………”

Aggrieved by the award dated 30.09.2016, passed by learned Labour Court, Bokaro, the petitioner-management has approached this Court.

5. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management vociferously argues that the Award dated 30.09.2016, passed by learned Labour Court, Bokaro in Ref. Case No. 20 of 2010, is bad in law and hence, liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. Learned counsel further argues that learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the provisions contained in the Standing Order of the petitioner-management and as such, came to a wrong finding. Learned Labour Court also failed to appreciate that the question of dispute regarding date of birth of workman cannot be allowed in the garb of question relating to date of superannuation. Learned Labour Court has also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence brought on record particularly Exts. M/1 to M/20 which c