Service records' date of birth final per Standing Orders; late correction not permitted, upholding superannuation.

ORDER

A.The Writ Petition:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned award made in I.D.

(L) No.24 of 2017 dated 31.08.2023 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, at Puducherry.

B.The Claim made by the Employee:

2. The factual background in which the Writ Petition arises is that S.Murugan, the husband of the petitioner – Suseela, joined the services of the respondent – management on 01.11.1980. At the time of joining, his date of birth was recorded as 04.08.1958, instead of 10.01.1964. During his employment, upon noticing the mistake, the employee submitted a request to the management along with a copy of the transfer certificate, asking to correct his date of birth to 10.01.1964 in his service records. When issuing a new identity card to employees, the management listed his date of birth as 10.01.1964. However, the management apparently did not update the service records accordingly. On 04.08.2016, when the employee reported for duty as usual, he was not allowed to join and was informed that he had been superannuated from service. Consequently, he was forcibly retired 6 years, 8 months, and 3 days before his actual superannuation date, which he claimed was a violation of the standing orders. As a result, the employee filed a dispute concerning his non-employment. The Government of Puducherry referred the matter to the Labour Court for decision through Government Order dated

27.04.2017, raising the following questions:-

“(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner Thiru.

S.Murugan S/o Shenbagalingam, Muthialpet, Puducherry over re- instatement after correction of date of birth and back wages is justifiable or not? If justified, what is the relief titled to ?

(b) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed?”

2.1. The claim was recorded as I.D.(L).No.24 of 2017. The employee submitted a claim statement on 23.06.2017. The management resisted the claim.

C.The Case of the Management :

3. It is the contention of the management that the employee was not a workman within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They further contend that the employee joined the erstwhile Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited on 01.01.1980 and thereafter received periodical promotions, culminating in his last promotion from Senior Executive to Manager (Production) at the M/S Aldehyde plant, as per the order dated 29.02.2012. His role involves planning production on a shift basis, cross- checking the quality of raw materials, intermediates, and solvents, filling the Batch Production Record, raising samples during the production process, submitting MRMs to the service department, checking positive pressure and weighing scales, allocating jobs to operators under his supervision, and reporting directly to him. The employee had pervasive control over the unit’s entire production and supervised the work, being responsible for extracting work from the workers. He reported to the company’s Senior Manager.

Therefore, the industrial dispute is not maintainable.

3.1. When the dispute involves a single employee, it cannot be entertained under Section 2(k) of the ID Act. The employee's date of birth was recorded as 04.08.1958 in the records of the erstwhile Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, based solely on the employee's information. This date appears on his Provident Fund form, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation nomination form, and all related documents. When the employee submitted a letter on 09.03.2015 to the company requesting correction of his date of birth, the company did not respond favourably and instead issued a letter dated 02.08.2016 stating his retirement date as 31.08.2016. The employ