KALI SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant him all consequential benefits as per Award dtd. 15/3/2013, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 62 of 2009. It has also been prayed for quashing the part portion of settlement dtd. 19/8/2013 entered between the petitioner and respondent-management by which it was agreed that the petitioner will not claim any back wages for the idle period and the said period will be treated as "Dies Non", which is against the principle of Sec. 17A of the I.D. Act. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay full back wages for the period from 1/7/2006 to 20/8/2013.

(3.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Management on 31/3/1973. At the time of his joining, his date of birth was recorded in the original Form 'B' register as 14/2/1954 and accordingly, he was entitled to remain in service till February, 2014, as per the provisions of Certified Standing Orders of Coal India Ltd. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, on 19/1/2006, he received a notice from the respondent No. 1 that the management is going to retire him w.e.f. 27/6/2006. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation before the respondent-management stating therein that his date of birth recorded in Form 'B' register is 14/2/1954 and hence, he is entitled to continue in service till February, 2014 but the respondent-management without considering his representation, had superannuated him from service w.e.f. 26/6/2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.S. No. 3164 of 2006 before this Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dtd. 11/1/2007, observing that the writ involves disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided by a Writ Court. Hence, the petitioner raised industrial disputes, which was referred to Central Govt. Industrial No. 1, Dhanbad vide notification dtd. 9/11/2009, by framing the following issue for adjudication of the dispute: