Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
The Depot Manager – Petitioner
Versus
M. Rajaiah, S/o. Mankaiah – Respondent
Writ Petition No.40842 Of 2017
Decided On : 30-10-2023
SERVICE LAW - RETIREMENT - DATE OF BIRTH - CORRECTION - MAINTAINABILITY OF DISPUTE - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2-A(2) - EMPLOYEE NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH IN SERVICE RECORD OR THE AGE DISPUTE AT THE FAG END OF SERVICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, APSRTC, challenged the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, directing the petitioner to pay full wages and all other attendant and consequential benefits for the period from 01.05.2012 to 30.09.2012 to respondent No.1, who was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012. Respondent No.1 raised a dispute after retirement, claiming that his actual date of birth was 10.09.1954, not 10.04.1954, as recorded in his service records.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in passing the impugned Award without properly considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, which held that an employee is not entitled to raise a dispute in respect of correction of date of birth in service record or the age dispute at the fag end of service. The court also held that the Industrial Tribunal failed to consider the maintainability of the dispute raised by respondent No.1, who raised the dispute after retirement and after receiving terminal benefits.
Issues: 1. Whether an employee is entitled to raise a dispute in respect of correction of date of birth in service record or the age dispute at the fag end of service? 2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in passing the impugned Award without properly considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles: 1. An employee is not entitled to raise a dispute in respect of correction of date of birth in service record or the age dispute at the fag end of service. 2. The Industrial Tribunal must properly consider the maintainability of a dispute raised by an employee, especially when the dispute is raised after retirement and after receiving terminal benefits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
ORDER :
APSRTC presently TSRTC filed this writ petition questioning the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Warangal in I.D.No.25 of 2012 dated 30.06.2017, which was published vide G.O.Rt.No.768 dated 25.09.2017.
2. Heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation, and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1/workman.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 was appointed as Driver in the petitioner Corporation on 17.12.1979. At the time of appointment, he declared his date of birth as 10.04.1954 and also mentioned the very same date of birth in the nomination forms. Respondent No.1 got certified by the Assistant Civil Surgeon, Jangaon, on 26.05.1981 that the information furnished in the attested forms is correct and the medical officer after conducting medical examination declared that he is medically fit for employment and in his service record, the date of birth is mentioned as 10.04.1954. He further submits that as per clause (1)(a) of Regulation 6 of APSRTC Employee (Service) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter called, “Regulation” brevity), petitioner Corporation issued advance notice vide letter No.E2/757/(17)/2011-WL-1, dated 01.11.2011, informing respondent No.1 about his due date of retirement and he acknowledged for the same and he has not raised any objection about his date of birth.
3.1. He further submits that respondent No.1 was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012 and he received all retirement benefits, such as, gratuity, SBT, terminal encashment, settlement salary and SRBS amounts from the petitioner Corporation. Thereafter, respondent No.1 raised a dispute vide I.D.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal at Warangal invoking the provisions of Section 2-(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) stating that that the petitioner Corporation retired him prematurely and his actual date of birth is 10.09.1954 and sought consequential direction directing Corporation to treat the period from 01.05.2012 to 30.09.2012 as on duty and to pay full wages and all other attendant and consequential benefits including retirement benefits for the said period.
3.2. He further submits that the petitioner Corporation filed counter before the Industrial Tribunal contending that the dispute raised by respondent No.1 is not maintainable under law, as he has not raised any dispute in respect of his date of birth during his entire service and after retirement, he raised the dispute. He further contended that the Industrial Tribunal, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner Corporation and evidence on record, erroneously passed the impugned Award directing the petitioner Corporation to pay full wages and all other attendant and consequential benefits for the period from 01.05.2012 to 30.09.2012 and the same is contrary to law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the actual date of birth of respondent No.1 was recorded as 10.09.1954 and later it was corrected to 10.04.1954 and the petitioner Corporation has to retire him from services on 30.09.2012, on the other hand retired him prematurely on 30.04.2012. The Industrial Tribunal after considering the contentions of respective parties and documentary evidence on record rightly passed the impugned Award holding that basing on the medical certificate, the date of birth was recorded as 10.09.1954 and subsequently the said date was altered to 10.04.1954 without any notice to respondent No.1 and without any basis. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said Award.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 was appointed as Driver in the petitioner Corporation on 17.12.1979. As per the Regulations, the petitioner Corpo
An employee is not entitled to raise a dispute in respect of correction of date of birth in service record or the age dispute at the fag end of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reasonable explanation for delay in raising a dispute and the entitlement of the workman to the correction of his date of birth i....
Service records' date of birth final per Standing Orders; late correction not permitted, upholding superannuation.
The burden of proof lies on the employee to establish the incorrectness of the date of birth recorded in the service records, and the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the scope of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for irrefutable proof and timely requests for correction of date of birth in service records, as well as the limitations on seeking....
Correction of date of birth can only be permitted in exceptional cases with irrefutable proof, and applications can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, especially when made at the fag end ....
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
