JUDGMENT

M.S.Sahoo, J. - The petitioner-company registered under the Companies Act, employer of opposite party no.3, by filing the writ petition has challenged the award dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-1) of the learned Labour Court, Sambalpur passed in I.D. Case No. 31 of 2013.

2. The operative portion of the award made by the learned Labour Court is quoted herein:-

'The reference is answered on contest without any cost. The termination of services of Sri Haribola Dash, workman by way of retirement with effect from 01.08.2012 by the management of M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited, Belpahar, Dist-Jharsuguda is held to be illegal and unjustified. The second-party is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and other service benefits. The management is directed to reinstate the second-party in service immediately and refix his date of retirement as 28.02.2014. The first-party management is further directed to pay full back wages to the second party with effect from 01.08.2012 including his regular increment and all other service benefits within a period of two months hence.'

3. The I.D. Case No.31 of 2013 was pursuant to reference made by the Govt. of Odisha in the Labour and ESI Department under the power conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (for short the 'Act 1947') vide Order under Memo No. 4447(4) dated 7.5.2013. The schedule of reference is quoted herein:-

'Whether the termination of services of Sri Haribola Dash, workman by way of retirement with effect from 01.08.2012 by the management of M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited, Belpahar, Dist-Jharsuguda is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?'

4. The opposite party no.3 (second party workman before the labour court) in his statement of claim submitted as follows:-

'(i) that the workman Shri Haribola Dash joined the first party erstwhile Tata Refractories Ltd (Previous name of the 1st party) on 06.07.1978 and continuously worked sincerely and faithfully till he was retired w.e.f. 01.08.2012 at the age of 58 years 5 months 24 days even though as per the standing order Clause No.48, he was to retire at the age of 60 years i.e., on 07.02.2014 (end of month 28.2.2014)

(ii) That at the time of his joining his school leaving certificate was not available with him for which Medical report was called for an the company Doctor Certified his age was 24 years on 03.07.1978 and later on he submitted his school leaving certificate to the management, which reflects his date of birth 07.02.1954. So his 60 years complete on 07.02.2014.

(iii) That the workman is a permanent/regular workman having P.F.A/c. No.OR/257/3664 and Pension Fund A/c. No.OR257/1791 at the time of retirement he was in the post of Master Technician in Basic Department bearing P.No.2240 and there was no adverse remark against him at any point of time.

(iv) That on 17.2.2012, the workman was informed by a letter no.HRM/P/489 dated 17.2.2012 by the General Manager (HRM & Admn.) that his retirement will take effect from 01.08.2012 and his last working day will be on 31.07.2012.

(v) That the workman replied to the said letter by his application dated 25.02.2012 stating his date of birth being 07.02.1954 he will retire on 28.2.2014 not on 01.08.2012 but the same was not considered by the 1st party and the workman's service was terminated w.e.f. 01.08.2012 by retirement without affording any natural justice to him. He was issued a service certificate on 06.08.2012, which also reflects his date of birth on 07.02.1954.

5. On being noticed by the learned Labour Court, the first party management filed their written statement. In the written statement, the petitioner herein (first party management) presented the facts as follows :-

'The first party-management is a limited company having its Registered Office at Belpahar and Head Office at Jamshedpur. Prior to the formation of the TRL