The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was not barred by any law and was maintainable before the Civil Court as there was no industrial dispute referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act and the plaintiff was not entitled to seek any remedy under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1996 arising out Original Suit No. 506 of 1994.

2. Original Suit No. 506 of 1994 was instituted by the plaintiff-respon#31;dent for declaration that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 27.4.1941 and not 3.11.1936, as also for an injunction restraining the defendant from retir#31;ing the plaintiff on the basis of the incorrect date of birth as recorded in the service book, and at the age of 58 years. Plaintiff's case was that he was ap#31;pointed as a driver/mechanic in the erstwhile U.P. Electricity Supply Company, Allahabad, which was taken over by the U.P. State Electricity Board in the year 1964. At the time of taking over, an option was given to the employees to opt the terms and conditions of the U.P. State Electricity Board, but those who did not opt the service conditions of the Board, remained as Ex-Licensee Staff whose service conditions were governed by the Standing Orders of the erstwhile Company. It was claimed that as per the rules contained in the Standing Orders, the age of retirement was 60 years whereas the defen#31;dants were seeking to retire the plaintiff at the age of 58 years even though the plaintiff did not opt the change over and remained Ex-licensee staff. The plaintiff further claimed that the date of birth recorded in the service book was incorrect, which ought to be 27.4.1941. On the aforesaid averments, the suit was instituted on 28.4.1994.

3. The defendant, U.P. State Electricity Board, contested the suit thereby claiming that the date of birth was correctly recorded as 3.11.1936 and, as such, the plaintiff would retire on 30.11.1994. It was also claimed that the plaintiff was not Ex-licensee staff and, as such, not governed by the Standing Orders of the Company. In the additional pleas, it was claimed that the suit was barred by section 6 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

4. Trial Court framed various issues and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not an Ex-licensee ; that his services would be governed by the U.P. Service Regulations ; that the Standing Orders would not be applicable ; that the date of birth was correctly recorded ; and that he was entitled to con#31;tinue in service only up to the age of 58 years i.e., 3.11.1994. With regard to the bar of section 6 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter re#31;ferred to as the "Tribunal Act, 1976"), the Trial Court held that the relief sought for in the suit i.e., declaration with regard to the correct date of birth, could only be granted by the Civil Court, therefore, the suit was not barred by section 6 thereof. However, on the finding returned on the other issues, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1996. The Court of Special Judge, Allahabad by its judgment and decree dated 25.1.1997, partly allowed the Appeal to the extent that the plaintiff would retire at the age of 60 years whereas the relief for cor#31;rection of date of birth was denied. While allowing the appeal of the plain#31;tiff-respondent, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that from the service book of the plaintiff it was clear that the plaintiff was an Ex-li#31;censee to whom the Standing Orders were applicable, which provided the age of retirement as 60 years. With regard to the bar of section 6 of the Tribunal Act, 1976, the Appellate Court held that the bar would not apply inasmuch as the provisions of the Tribunal Act, 1976 were not applicable to a workman by virtue of section 1 (4) (e) of the Act.

6. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, the pre#31;sent second appeal has been filed by the U.P. State Electricity Board, through its Chairman. At the time of admission of the appeal the following substant