MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OSMANABAD Vs. TRIVENI W/O MADAN MASKE
LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-239
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Decided on November 03,2017

Municipal Council Osmanabad ... Appellant
VERSUS
Triveni Madan Maske Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NITIN W.SAMBRE,J. - (1.) The petitioner, a Municipal Council, a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter shall be referred to 'Act' for sake of brevity), preferred this petition questioning the judgment delivered by the Member, Industrial Court, Latur on 3rd November, 2009 in favour of respondent - employee, whereby it was declared that the date of birth of present respondent-employee be considered as 25th August, 1954 and the petitioner should desist from indulging into unfair labour practice in view of Schedule IV, Item-9 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. It is further directed by the tribunal that the respondent- employee be reinstated w.e.f. 28th February, 2007 alongwith backwages of 25%.
(2.) The facts as are necessary for deciding the present petition are as under : It is the case of petitioner that from 1978, she was working with the respondent on daily wages as 'Safai Kamgar'. The petitioner herein confirmed her services pursuant to the order of Divisional Commissioner/Regional Director of Municipal Administration vide order dated 19th April, 2002 on the said post with retrospective effect i.e. 31st October, 2001. The respondent-employee was thereafter directed to produce relevant certificates and on the date of joining, upon her medical examination, she has disclosed to the Civil Surgeon her age 55 years as on 13 th February, 2002 as is reflected in the certificate issued by Civil Surgeon. The petitioner, as such, stood retired from service after attaining age of superannuation on 28th February, 2007.
(3.) The petitioner claimed that on the date of superannuation, she has completed age of 55 years and not age of superannuation, as her date of birth was wrongly recorded. According to the petitioner, her date of birth should have been recorded as 16th May, 1966 and not 13th April, 1947. So as to substantiate the said claim, she has produced certificate issued by concerned Grampanchayat.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.