JUDGMENT :

S.N.Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Since both the writ petitions are arising out of same reference case, these are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. In W.P.(L). No. 374 of 2014 the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 06.09.2013, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Ref. Case No. 04 of 2007, whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the Management and against the Workman.

In W.P.(L). No. 4737 of 2012, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 07.07.2012, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Ref. Case No. 04 of 2007, whereby, he has rejected the application dated 04.05.2012 and 05.06.2010 for summoning the dealing clerk/ competent authority, Employee's Provident Fund Organization.

4. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. In the year 1983, the petitioner was appointed as Guard under respondent-Management and since then, he was working with utmost loyalty, integrity and upon the satisfaction of his superior without any stigma in his service career. While discharging his duties, he received letter dated 07.09.2004 from the respondent-management whereby it was informed to the petitioner that on completion of 60 years of age, he is going to superannuate from service w.e.f. 30.09.2004 treating his date of birth as 01.10.1944. It is the case of the petitioner that his date of birth is 28.04.1955, which was also accepted by the respondent-management and according to this, his actual date of superannuation would be 30.04.2015. Soon after he received the letter dated 07.09.2004, the workman submitted representation before the respondent-management for correction of his date of birth but no action was taken by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner was compelled to raise industrial dispute and the Govt. of Jharkhand vide notification dated 09.10.2006 referred the same to the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur by framing following issue for adjudication:

"Whether the premature retirement of Sri Lal Bahadur, Helper, T. No. 64/50401 by the Management of M/s. Jemco Ltd., Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

5. Upon receipt of the said notification, the learned Labour Court registered the case as Ref. Case No. 04 and 2007 and issued notices to both the parties for filing their respective written statements, rejoinder, etc. Both parties appeared before the Court and filed their respective written statements in support of their cases. Both parties also adduced oral as well as documentary evidences. The workman has examined himself as the sole witness whereas, the management has also examined one witness. Thereafter, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences and documents brought on record, the learned Labour Court vide its Award dated 06.09.2013, answered the reference in favour of the Management and against the Workman.

Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner-workman has knocked the door of this Court.

6. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur is grossly illegal and arbitrary and suffers from error apparent from the face of the record. The Award is perverse in law as well as in fact since the learned Labour Court travelled beyond the terms of reference. Learned counsel further argues that from the contents of the various documents which were exhibited before the learned Labour Court it is manifested that the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement in services. Learned Labour Court has overlooked the fact that it is a creation of statute and it cannot be allowed to travel beyond the terms of reference. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Labour Court has failed to consider the fact that without complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the services of the concerned workman cannot be terminated. Learned coun