R.K.Agrawal, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit Siswa Bazar, District Maharajganj. seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th June, 1991 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U. P., Gorakhpur, respondent No. 2. filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition and other consequential reliefs. Vide order dated 12th June, 1991, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has directed the petitioner to correct the date of birth of the respondent No. 1, Salamat Mia, as "1935" and quashed the notice of retirement dated 31st August, 1989. He further directed for giving all consequential benefits by treating the respondent No. 1 to be in service.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : "M/s. Mahavir Sugar Mills, Siswa Bazar, District Gorakhpur (now district Maharajganj) (hereinafter referred to as "the Mill") which manufactures crystal sugar by vacuum pan process, was acquired on 28th October, 1984 by the State of U. P. under the provisions of the U. P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, as amended by the U. P. Act No. XX of 1985. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was appointed, in the year 1943, as a Machineman in the Mill. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Mate. The date of birth of the respondent No. 1 as recorded in the service book is "year 1929". When the respondent No. 1 became eligible under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, he filled his declaration in which also the date of birth has been noted as "year 1929". On the basis of Paragraph LL of the standing orders applicable to the workmen in the Vacuum Sugar Pan Factories in Uttar Pradesh, which provides that where the provident fund record of the workman does not specify the date or month of birth, in that case the first November of the year shall be deemed to be the date of retirement, a notice was issued on 31st August, 1989 to the respondent No. 1 that he will be completing the age of 60 years on 31st October, 1989 and that he will be retiring on 1st November, 1989, On receipt of the retirement notice dated 31st August, 1989, the respondent No. 1 gave an application on 8th September, 1989 to the Labour Commissioner, U. P., Kanpur, which was subsequently transferred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur. In the application, it was stated that the notice dated 31st August, 1989 seeking to retire him on 31st October, 1989, is illegal and that his date of birth as recorded in the Parivar Register of the Gaon Sabha is 1935 and therefore, his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the record of the petitioner as 1929. The petitioner contested the claim made by the respondent No: 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had himself at the time of his appointment as also at the time of filling the declaration .form for joining the Employees Provident Fund Scheme has mentioned his date of birth as "year 1929" and he did not make any complaint or application for correction of his date of birth prior to issuance of retirement notice dated 31st August, 1989 and, therefore, the same cannot be corrected. The petitioner further raised a doubt about the correctness of the extract of the Parivar register filed by the respondent No. 1 as the respondent No. 1 had filed a photostat copy of the extract from the Parivar register. The respondent No. 1 examined himself. He did not admit that in the police record, his date of birth has been recorded as the year 1929. He has been working in the Mill for the last 30-35 years and prior to his employment in the Mill he had worked at the residence of Sri Bose (General Manager) for 10-12 years. He had further admitted that he started his services when he was a minor aged about 10-12 years and he did not make any complaint about his age having been wrongly recorded in the Mill's record. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, by the impugned order, had accepted the entries made in the Parivar register and had accordingly directed the petitioner to correct the date of birth as 1935 in the records and to give him the benefit of service and wages."
(3.) I have heard Sri R. D. Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shyam Narain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.;