Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Alstom Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
P. O. Industrial Tribunal I U. P. Alld. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the award and procedural context. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. employment, date of birth, superannuation context. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's review of evidence and reasoning. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. invalidity of earlier orders. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling on writ petition. (Para 10) |
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 Govern
The court established that modifications to an employee's recorded date of birth must be made within one year of the Standing Order's enforcement, and late applications are not permissible.
Service records' date of birth final per Standing Orders; late correction not permitted, upholding superannuation.
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
