Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—The respondent No. 2 was appointed with the petitioner on the post of a Pumpman in the year 1972. On 12.5.1972, the respondent No. 2 had given out that he was 22 years of age. Thereafter, in 1975, the petitioner was made permanent. The retirement age of the respondent No. 2 was 60 years. In the Standing Orders, which were published under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was provided as to when a workman was to retire and as per its provisions, the petitioner No. 1 issued a notice on 12.8.2010 that under sub-section 5 of Clause LL of the Standing Orders the respondent No. 2 was to retire on 1.11.2010. Even before the notice was issued on 12.8.2010 by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 was to retire on 1.11.2010, the respondent No. 2 on 8.2.2010 had filed a case before the Conciliation Board numbered as C.B. Case No. 1 of 2010, praying that his date of birth, as was given out in the records of the petitioner No. 1, be modified and be recorded as 10.8.1956. On 23.3.2010, the petitioner had filed a detailed objection regarding the maintainability of the application filed by the respondent No. 2. and on 8.12.2010, the Conciliation Board directed the respondent No. 2 to approach the competent Authority and observed that under the U.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated 27.9.1988 the Upper/Additional Labour Commissioner ought to have been approached. Even while the Conciliation Board was seized with the matter, the petitioner had issued the notice to the respondent No. 2 on 12.8.2010 that he had to retire on 1.11.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 on 20.12.2010 filed his application before Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur. The petitioner filed its written statement on 20.1.2011 and categorically submitted that as per the Standing Orders issued under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act if any modification of age was desired it could have been got done within one year from the date of enforcement of the Standing Orders which were issued on 27.9.1988, and if the workman was already employed then he could get his age modified as per the Clause 3 of the Standing Orders within one month of the notice of retirement and, therefore, in the written statement it had been stated by the petitioner that when the respondent No. 2 did not approach the Deputy Labour Commissioner within one month of the notice which was given on 12.8.2010 he had lost the opportunity to get his date of birth rectified. Further, submission made in the written statement was that since the respondent No. 2 was no longer a workman and since the respondent No. 2 was still claiming to be a workman, it had to be decided as to whether he was a workman and this matter could be resolved only by a Labour Court after a reference was made to it. When, however, the order was passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 11.6.2013 in favour of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner approach this Court by means of this writ petition and made the following submissions :

I. The Standing Orders which have statutory force (U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited v. Ambika Singh and another, 1999 ALJ 698) provided that the rectification/modification of age could be done within one year from the date of enforcement of the Standing Orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner read out the Clause LL of the Standing Orders. The relevant portion is being reproduced here as under :

LL. Retirement of workman on reaching the age of superannuation.

1. A workman may be retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation which shall be 60 years.

2. The provident fund record of the factory specifying the workman’s age should, to begin with, be taken as the reliable record of the age of a workman for purposes of retirement.

3. This record of age shall stand modified as may be warranted the following :

(a) Date of birth as given in High School certified. If the School leaving certificate is below High School