Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 4269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Madras Dock Labour Board – Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer and P. Varadhan – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23605 of 2010
Decided On : 20-09-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G. Venkatraman for M/s. Aiyar, Dolia.
For the Respondent: K. Ramesh.
The dispute regarding the alteration of the date of birth of an employee does not fall within Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the decision of the Civil Court operates as res-judicata.
Headnote:
Date of Birth Dispute - Employment Dispute - Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court discussed the dispute regarding the alteration of the date of birth of the employee, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the probative value of the birth certificates produced by the employee. The court found that the dispute did not fall within Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the decision of the Civil Court operated as res-judicata, and the employee's certificates had no probative value. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned Award was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The Chennai Port Trust challenged an Award directing the reinstatement and continuity of service of an employee until the actual age of retirement. The employee's date of birth was disputed, and the Civil Court had dismissed the employee's suit seeking a declaration of his date of birth and permanent injunction against premature retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute did not fall within Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the decision of the Civil Court operated as res-judicata, and the employee's certificates had no probative value.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the res-judicata effect of the Civil Court's decision, and the probative value of the employee's birth certificates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute did not fall within Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the decision of the Civil Court operated as res-judicata, and the employee's certificates had no probative value.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned Award was set aside.
1. The Chennai Port Trust has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, directing the relief of reinstatement and continuity of service till the actual age of retirement of the second respondent herein. I have heard Mr. G. Venkatraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel for the second respondent.
2. The admitted facts are as follows:-
(i) The second respondent was engaged as a Mazdoor by the Clearing and Forwarding Agents of the Chennai Port Trust from the year 1972. The Agents were under the administrative control of the Port Trust. At the time when the second respondent was engaged as the Mazdoor, he did not produce any Certificate showing his date of birth. Therefore, after medical examination, the Clearing and Forwarding Agents had fixed the age of the second respondent as 31 years as on 7.1.1974.
(ii) With effect from 1.8.1988, all persons, similarly placed like the second respondent and engaged from a pool of persons employed by the Clearing and Forwarding Agents, were brought into the fold of the Madras Dock Labour Board, when the Central Government framed the Madras Unregistered Clearing and Forwarding Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, in exercise of the power conferred u/s 4 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948.
(iii) Thus the second respondent became an employee of the Madras Dock Labour Board with effect from 1.8.1988. But before his absorption, the Board called upon the second respondent to produce proof of his date of birth and age. Since he did not produce any proof, the Medical Board fixed his age as 45 years as on 10.5.1988. The date of birth so fixed was 1.7.1943 and it was in tune with the date of birth fixed at the time when the second respondent was appointed in a pool of Mazdoors by the Clearing and Forwarding Agents.
(iv) After his absorption, the second respondent was informed by a communication dated 13.2.1990, that his date of birth had been fixed as 1.7.1943 and that therefore, he would be retiring on 30.6.2001. The second respondent did not protest.
(v) But after about 7 years of the aforesaid communication dated 13.2.1990, the second respondent sent a representation dated 24.12.1997, along with a copy of the School Certificate dated 10.12.1997, issued by the Town Panchayat Middle School, claiming that his date of birth was 5.7.1950.
(vi) Again by a further representation dated 27.6.2000, the second respondent forwarded a Birth Certificate issued by the Corporation of Madras dated 16.3.1998, showing his date of birth as 5.7.1950.
(vii) Since no action was taken on his representations, the second respondent caused a lawyer's notice to be sent on 18.8.2000. In response to the same, the second respondent was asked to appear before the Labour Welfare Officer on 28.11.2000. Subsequently, by communications dated 6.12.2000 and 16.2.2001, his request for alteration of date of birth was rejected.
(viii) In May 2001, the Board issued another communication, intimating that the second respondent would retire from service on 30.6.2001. Immediately, the second respondent filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 3090 of 2001 on 7.6.2001 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The prayer made by the second respondent in the suit was for a declaration that his date of birth was 5.7.1950 and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the Madras Dock Labour Board from retiring him prematurely on 30.6.2001.
(ix) In the suit, no interim order was granted in favour of the second respondent. Therefore, he was allowed to retire on 30.6.2001 and all his terminal benefits were also settled.
(x) Ultimately, by a judgment and decree dated 30.1.2006, the Civil Court dismissed the suit.
(xi) After the dismissal, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the Central Government Industria
