Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J.Sreenivas Rao, J.
Ande Lingaiah - Appellant
Versus
Sthe Singareni Collieries Compan Ltd - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19079 of 2005
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Date of Birth - Employment Dispute - Mines Rules 1955, Industrial Dispute Act 1947, Constitution of India Articles 14 and 21 - Rule 29(B) of the Mines Rules, 1955, Sec. 11 A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 29(B) of the Mines Rules, 1955, Sec. 11 A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in relation to the correction of date of birth in service records and premature retirement of an employee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Badli worker in 1973 with a recorded age of 28 years. After dismissal and reinstatement, the respondent company issued an advance intimation notice of the petitioner's superannuation, based on the recorded age, leading to a dispute over the correction of the petitioner's date of birth.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's age was recorded as 28 years at the time of initial appointment and reinstatement, and the petitioner had not produced any evidence to prove his age. The court also noted the delay in seeking correction of date of birth and the lack of acknowledgment for the representation submitted by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the correction of the petitioner's date of birth, the validity of the advance intimation notice, and the delay in seeking correction of date of birth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of irrefutable proof for correction of date of birth, the need for timely requests for correction, and the impact of delay on such requests. The court also highlighted the onus on the employee to prove the wrong recording of date of birth and the limitations on seeking correction at the fag end of the service.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the delay in seeking correction of date of birth, lack of acknowledgment for the representation, and the recorded age at the time of initial appointment and reinstatement.
JUDGMENT
J.SREENIVAS RAO,J. - This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing impugned orders Ref.No.RG.I/PH/40/AL/1556 dt.9/9/2004 by the 2nd Respondent retiring the petitioner from service prematurely with effect from 31/8/2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently by setting aside the impugned order dt.9/9/2004 grant me such appropriate order..."
2. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Pattabhi Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the year 1973, the District Employment Exchange officer sponsored the petitioner's name to respondent company for consideration for appointment for the post of Badli worker and he was accordingly appointed as a Badli worker vide proceedings No.DPO/RG/73/838 dtd. 10/7/1973 along with others. At the time of appointment the petitioner's age was 18 years and his date of birth was recorded in the District Employment Exchange as 10/6/1955. He further submits that the petitioner is an illiterate and basing on the statement given by him the date of birth was recorded as 10/6/1955. He further submits that during his tenure the respondent corporation has issued charge sheet on 7/11/1986 on the ground that the petitioner committed a theft and the respondent company after conducting denovo enquiry dismissed the petitioner from services by its order dtd. 13/5/1987. Questioning the said order the petitioner filed W.P.No.11848 of 1987 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 21/12/1989 granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. At that stage the petitioner raised dispute invoking the provisions of 2-A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before labour Court, Godavarikhani and the same was dismissed on 12/11/1992 on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the dispute i.e, L.C.I.D.No.1 of 2001 before Central Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Industrial Tribunal was pleased to pass award invoking the provisions of Sec. 11 A of act by setting aside the dismissal order dtd. 13/5/1987 and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Mazdoor on the pay scale as available on the date of absent of the award. However, the petitioner is not entitled for backwages, seniority etc. Pursuant to the said award the petitioner was reinstated into services on 26/3/2002.
4. Learned counsel further submits that during his services the respondent counsel utilized the services of the petitioner as driver in Power House on coal vehicle bearing No.7022 during the year 1982-84 and in the driving license the petitioner date of birth was recorded as 10/6/1955. While things stood thus, the respondent No.2 issued (advance intimation notice) impugned notice dtd. 9/9/2004 informing the petitioner that he is going to attain the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 31/8/2005 and immediately after receiving the said notice the petitioner approached the respondent company and submitted representation requesting the respondent authorities to correct his date of birth as 10/6/1955 taking into consideration the recording in the employment Exchange and driving license. The respondent corporation has not passed any order on the said representation. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is not aware of the wrong date of birth entered in his service record till he received the advance intimation notice dtd. 9/9/2004, at no point of time the respondent company has issued notice nor furnished any documents nor sent the petitioner to medical board for determination of
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....
Requests for correction of date of birth in service records made at the end of service are not sustainable unless made within prescribed time limits and with clear evidence of error.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of a career must be supported by irrefutable proof and evidence of real injustice, and....
The court ruled that corrections to an employee's recorded date of birth must be made promptly and substantiated by irrefutable evidence, especially when requested at the end of service.
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
