- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Dehradun dated 26-7- 1988, Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. The reference by the State Govern ment under Section 4-K of the U. P. In dustrial Dispute Act was as to whether the termination of service of the respondent No. 2 on 16-11-1985 was valid and proper. The respondent No. 2 was working as Mali employed by the petitioner from 1964. The petitioner terminated his service on 11-10-1985 as he had completed 60 years of ser vice. The respondent worker alleged that his date of birth was 31-7-1931 whereas accord ing to the petitioner it was 1-7-1925. It was admitted by the respondent worker that he told the principal that his date of birth was 31-1- 1931 only when he was issued letter of retirement stating that he has completed 60 years of service. This letter dated 10-10-1985 was received by the workeron 11-10-1985. It has been observed in paragraph 4 of the award that a chart was prepared by the employer in connection with the Provi dent Fund in August 1982 in which the date of birth of the employees had been men tioned. In this chart the date of birth of the respondent worker was shown as July 1925 vide Ext. E-2. The Labour Court has ob served that instead of asking the worker about the date of birth orally they should have been asked to inform in writing about his date of birth and only then that date of birth should have been entered in the said chart. In my opinion, this finding of the Labour Court is wholly arbitrary. It was open to the petitioner to have asked the worker to tell the date of birth orally and if the worker had any grievance against the recording of this date of birth in 1985 he should have been raised a dispute at that time. Instead he raised it only after receiving the notice of retirement. It is settled law that the date of birth cannot be changed shortly before the retirement [vide Union of India v. Harnam Singh, 1993 (67) FLR 262 (SC ). Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Bum Standard Company v. Dina Bandhumajumdar, 1995 (4) JT 23.
(3.) FOLLOWING the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it has to be held that theaward of the Labour Court is arbitrary andagainst the decisions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly I quash the impugned awarddated 26-7-1988. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;