The court emphasized the illegality of appointing a child in a labor-oriented industry and the importance of genuine documents to support claims related to date of birth in employment disputes.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, assisted by Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. It is the writ application, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani on 21.08.2021 upholding the order of discharge passed against the petitioner by the opposite party/Management on 05.11.2019.

3. Claim of the petitioner is that when he was taken into causal service in the year 1979, his date of birth was as 06.02.1969, but as he was underage in order to validate his employment, he gave an affidavit before the Management stating that his date of birth is 28.10.1961. Thereafter, when his service was regularised as Seasonal Worker in the Sugar Factory, his date of birth was entered as 28.10.1961 and, therefore, a decision was taken and a notice was issued for his discharge, on superannuation on 05.11.2019. Thereafter, he preferred an application before the Labour Court and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Transfer Certificate shows that the date of birth of the petitioner as 06.02.1969 and also this birth certificate cannot be relied upon in view of the affidavit written by the petitioner himself at the time entering in the employment. Moreover, it is seen that if his date of birth is taken to be 06.02.1969, on the date of his initial date of appointment, he was only 11 years old, which is contrary to the statute and the Court cannot be a party to such illegal appointment or appointment of a child in labour oriented industry. Moreover, the transfer certificate has been obtained in the year, 2013 and the birth certificate has been obtained in the year 2019 so the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani has come to a correct conclusion holding that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is rejected.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to take an instructions from his client to find out if there is any genuine document of a sterling quality, which can show that the petitioner's date of birth is 06.02.1969, we cannot provide an opportunity to the petitioner at this stage, as this is a writ of certiorari, but however, if any such document, in fact, is in existence, the petitioner is at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Court by way of an application either for review or for modification of this order.

5. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

6. There shall be no order as to the costs.

7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.