Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
The General Secretary (JRD), Bolanni Shramik, Barbil - Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela - Opposite Party
O.J.C. No. 754 of 2000
Decided On : 13-09-2016
Date of Birth - Industrial Dispute - Form-B register, Medical Examination Reports - The court discussed the discrepancies in the date of birth of the workman as recorded in Form-B register and medical examination reports. It highlighted the reliance on the first medical examination report and the official document showing the date of birth, and how it influenced the decision to negate the superannuation date set by the management.
Fact of the Case:
The workman's date of birth discrepancy led to his superannuation dispute. The management relied on medical examination reports to justify the superannuation, while the workman contested based on the discrepancies in the date of birth records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first medical examination report and the official document showing the date of birth were crucial in determining the workman's superannuation date, negating the decision of the management.
Issues: The maintainability of the reference, justification of the management's superannuation action, and the entitlement of relief to the workman were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The reliance on the first medical examination report and the official document showing the date of birth influenced the court's decision to negate the management's superannuation date.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the decision based on the relevant documents and the medical expert's opinion.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Prasad, J.
The award dated 30.7.2007 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.99 of 1997 is under challenged in this writ petition.
2. The dispute revolves regarding the date of birth of the workman and on account of discrepancy in the date of birth when he has been superannuated vide management letter dated 8.3.1994 w.e.f. 28.2.1994, the dispute has been raised by him and on the basis of the dispute, conciliation having been failed, Reference has been made for its adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The appropriate Government has made the following reference:-
“Whether the action of the management of Balangi Ores Mines, Raw Material Division, SAIL, P.O. Bolangir, Dist. Keonjhar in superannuating Sri Manoranjan Mohanty vide management’s letter dated 8.3.94 w.e.f. 28.2.1994 was justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
3. The fact leading to this case is that date of birth of the workman has been recorded in Form-B register as 17.5.1937 but in the identity card issued by the management date of birth was mentioned as 17.5.1938 and in order to avoid discrepancy the workman had made representation on 15.3.1994 to the management when the management superannuated him with retrospective effect from 28.2.1994 by its order dated 8.3.1994 by saying that he has illegally been superannuated since he was to continue in service till 16.5.1998 as per the provision of certified standing orders of the company. It is further case of the workman that initially he was appointed by M/s Bird & Co. on daily wage basis and was confirmed. Subsequently, Bolani Ores Mines was taken over by the SAIL on 29.12.1978, so the employees of Bolanni Ores Mines were transferred to the control of the SAIL. On the basis of the representation of the workman, the management sent the workman for medical examination for assessment of his age at I.G.H. Rourkela where it was assessed the date of birth was in the year 1940 and he should have continued service till 1998 but the management deliberately suppressed this fact and prayer has been made by the workman to reinstate him with full back wages till he reaches his superannuation on 28.5.1998.
Case of the opposite party-management is that the workman was superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years as per the provision of the service conditions of the employees. On 10.7.1959 the medical examination of the workman was done for the first time wherein his age was assessed by the medical officer as 23 years at that time. Once his service was terminated for his misconduct w.e.f. 28.12.1962 but again he was engaged w.e.f. 1.2.1963 and as per the procedure he was referred for medical examination wherein his age was assessed as 27 years vide medical report dated 5.2.1963. On the basis of that report the workman was superannuated on 28.2.1994 on attaining the age of 58 years. According to the management, the workman has been superannuated on the basis of the opinion of the Medical expert on attaining the age of 58 years, hence it has been prayed to reject the claim of the workman.
4. On the basis of the factual background, the Industrial Tribunal in order to answer the reference has formulated the following three issues:-
I. Whether the reference is maintainable ?
II. Whether the action of the management of Bolani Ores Mines, in superannuating Sri Manoranjan Mohanty vide management’s letter dt.8.3.94 w.e.f. 28.2.94 was justified ?
III. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
5. In order to prove their cases the management has examined one witness and the workman has been examined in this case. From perusal of the award it is evident that the workman has relied on the medical examination report prepared by medical board on 29.12.38 on which date he was examined and taking his age on that date as 55 years, his date of birth has been calculated as 29.12.1938 but the management challenges this report on the ground that his name was recommended by an officer of the management for me
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
