JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sajid Emam Naqvi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2/workman is present. He states that he has no instructions from his client.

3. This writ petition has been filed assailing the reference order dated 19.06.1995 and the award dated 27.07.1998, published on 05.03.1999 in Adjudication Case No. 80 of 1995.

4. Facts in brief, are that workman/respondent no. 2 was engaged in the service of the petitioner-company. According to petitioner-company, the date of birth as recorded in the Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme filled by the workman was 15.06.1933. The workman attained the age of superannuation on 14.06.1991 and all the dues were paid to the workman. He raised industrial dispute and a reference was made by the State Government exercising power under Section 4 -K read with Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act on 19.06.1995. The Labour Court made an award on 27.07.1998 holding the date of birth of the workman to be February, 1935 and held that he was entitled for the back wages from 15.06.1991 to February, 1993.

5. Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the standing order of the petitioner-company fairly provides that age of superannuation of a workman is 58 years. He has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-8 of the writ petition which is the Letter of Admission and Authority of the Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme which has been filled by the workman, Ram Ashrey Prasad Yadav wherein date of birth has been disclosed as 15.06.1933. According to petitioner counsel, the Labour Court committed irregularity by holding date of birth of the workman to be February, 1935.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

7. From perusal of the Letter of Admission and Authority of Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme, the date of birth as recorded before the insurance authority is 15.06.1933. The Labour Court had wrongly held that the date of birth of the workman is February, 1935.

8. The standing order clearly provides that a workman shall retire at the age of 58 years. As the workman/respondent no. 2 attained the age of superannuation on 14.06.1991, petitioner-company has rightly passed the order for retiring him from service. The award made by the Labour Court is totally against the material on record.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the award dated 27.07.1998 and the reference order dated 19.06.1995 are totally against the material on record and are unsustainable in the eyes of law and both the orders are hereby set aside.

10. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.