Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. K. Trivedi, J.
U.P.STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., MAHRAJGANJ - Appellant
Versus
AMBIKA SINGH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 19085 Of 1993
Decided On : 12/04/1998
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - RETIREMENT - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - MODIFICATION OF AGE RECORD - LIMITATION - U. P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 3(B) - U. P. SUGAR UNDERTAKINGS (ACQUISITION) ACT, 1971 - STANDING ORDERS GOVERNING THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF WORKMEN IN VACUUM PAN SUGAR FACTORIES OF THE STATE - CLAUSE LL - FACTORIES ACT, 1948.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a sugar mill acquired by the State of U. P. under the U. P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, served a notice of retirement to respondent No. 1, an employee, upon reaching the age of superannuation of 60 years as per the Standing Orders governing the conditions of employment of workmen in vacuum pan sugar factories of the State. Respondent No. 1 challenged the notice before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, claiming his date of birth to be different from that recorded in the service records, and sought correction of the record. The Deputy Labour Commissioner accepted the claim and directed the petitioner to modify the record accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Standing Orders, framed by the State Government under Section 3(b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had statutory force and contained rules of evidence for modifying age records and recording the date of birth of new entrants and employees of sugar factories. The court found that the limitation period for seeking modification of the age record was one year from the date of enforcement of the Standing Orders, which had expired before respondent No. 1 filed his application. The court also found that respondent No. 1 had failed to establish his claimed date of birth by reliable evidence and had not raised any objection to the date of birth recorded in his service record during his long service of 42 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner erred in accepting respondent No. 1's claim for modification of his date of birth in the service record beyond the limitation period prescribed in the Standing Orders? 2. Whether respondent No. 1 had established his claimed date of birth by reliable evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner erred in accepting respondent No. 1's claim for modification of his date of birth beyond the limitation period prescribed in the Standing Orders. The court found that the Standing Orders clearly provided for a one-year limitation period for seeking modification of the age record, and respondent No. 1 had failed to file his application within that period. 2. The court held that respondent No. 1 had failed to establish his claimed date of birth by reliable evidence. The court found that the photostat copy of the school leaving certificate relied upon by respondent No. 1 was inadmissible as evidence, and that the declaration and nomination form signed by respondent No. 1 when he became a member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme contradicted his claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, and upheld the petitioner's notice of retirement served on respondent No. 1.
( 1 ) IN this petition counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at the admission stage.
( 2 ) MAHABIR Sugar Mills, Diswa Bazar, district Mahrajganj was acquired by the State of U. P. under the provisions of the U. P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 and after acquisition, its control and management vested in the U. P. State Sugar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) with effect from 28. 10. 1984.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Ambika Singh, an employee of petitioner corporation, had joined as engine driver on 6. 9. 1947. In the particulars of service maintained by the erstwhile Mahabir Sugar mills, his date of birth was recorded as 22. 9. 1929. The name of the post and department mentioned were engine driver in season and fitter Mazdoor in off season, engineering department. Respondent No. 1 was served with a notice dated 31. 8. 1989 intimating that he shall attain the age of superannuation on 31. 10. 1989 on completing 60 years of age and he will be relieved from service with effect from 1. 11. 1989. He was also intimated that after being relieved from service, he may get his account cleared with regard to retiral benefits. The aforesaid notice of retirement, it appears, was served in compliance of the requirement provided in sub-clause (5)of clause LL of the Standing Orders governing the conditions of employment of workmen in vacuum. Pan Sugar Factories of the State (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders ). The standing Orders were published in Official Gazette as Notification No. 5692 (H. D/36-2-110 (H. I) /77, dated 27. 9. 1988 under the order of the Governor under clause 3 of Article 348 of the constitution of India. Respondent No. 1 challenged the notice of retirement before the Deputy labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 2, under sub-clause (6) of clause LL which was registered as S. O. Dispute No. 7 of 1990. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by his order dated 1. 2. 1993, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, accepted the claim of respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner to correct the record by showing date of birth of respondent No. 1 as 20. 4. 1934 [in place of 22. 9. 1929 ). He set aside the notice of retirement dated 31. 8. 1939 and also directed that respondent No. 1 shall be entitled for all the benefits which he would have normally received had he been in service.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of respondent No. 2, the corporation has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 5 ) 1 have heard Shri R. D. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was represented by learned standing counsel.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1 joined Service as an employee of Mahabir Sugar Mills on 6. 9. 1947 and in service records maintained by Mahabir sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. , the date of birth recorded was 22. 9. 1929. A photo copy of the record has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This document. Annexure-1, also contains a declaration and nomination form in which he had been shown as married, name of his wife had been shown as Smt. Lachhi Devi as his nominee and her age had been shown as 22 years. Annexure-1 bears signature of respondent No. 1 also. It has been submitted that looking to the facts mentioned in the service record prepared at the time when respondent No. 1 was employee of Mahabir Sugar Mills, the date of birth 20. 4. 1934 pleaded by him before respondent No. 2 could not have been believed. In this connection, further submission is that respondent No. 1 became member of the Provident Fund Scheme on 22. 9. 1956. This document has also been signed by Ambika Singh, respondent No. 1. His age had been shown as 27 years, wifes name mentioned is Lachhi Devi as nominee of respondent No. 1 and t
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
