- (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has impugned the Award dated 14th November, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Bombay granting the first respondent workman the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits upto 14th July, 1992 that is his deemed date of retirement.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the present petition may be stated in brief as under :-On 25th April, 1977, the first respondent workman was appointed as a Sarang by the petitioner. The petitioner being a Stevedoring Company required the certificate issued by the Mercantile Marine Department of the Government of India to prospective employees in order to recruit them. This certificate dated 23rd February, 1960 was produced by the first respondent. The said certificate issued to, the first respondent workman declared his year of birth as "1929" and since no specific date was given, the petitioner while recruiting the first respondent noted his date of birth as 31st December, 1929. On 30th November, 1989, the petitioner informed the first respondent that he would be superannuated with effect from 1st January, 1990 upon reaching the age of 60 years. The petitioner was informed by the Trade Union representing the first respondent that the date of birth of the first respondent was 15th July, 1932 and, therefore, he was entitled to continue for three more years in service. The letter from the Union also mentions that the first respondent had declared in his nomination form pertaining to the Provident Fund Scheme that his date of birth was 15th July, 1932 and that the first respondent had already submitted the School Leaving Certificate in order to substantiate his claim about his date of birth. The petitioner informed the Union by its letter dated 3rd January, 1990 that it had accepted the date of birth as given in the Mercantile Marine Department Certificate and that the School Leaving Certificate was never submitted by the first respondent. As regards the date of birth given in the declaration form pertaining to the Provident Fund Scheme, the petitioner stated that no verification of the record was done and the date of birth declared by the first respondent while producing the Certificate was accepted by them. On 5th March, 1990, the petitioner enquired from the Tahsildar of the village where the first respondent was born as to the correct date of birth of the first respondent. No reply was received to this letter.
(3.) THE first respondent, therefore, raised an Industrial Dispute claiming reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages from 1st January, 1990. The dispute was referred for adjudication. Pleadings were filed and evidence of the first respondent workman and the General Manager of the petitioner was recorded. The first respondent claimed that he had obtained the School Leaving Certificate in the year 1985 and it was on account of an inquiry made with his mother that he learnt that his correct date of birth and, therefore, had mentioned the date of birth as 15th July, 1932 in the declaration form for the Provident Fund nomination. The General Manager of the petitioner deposed that the first respondent did not at any stage produce any record so as to enable the petitioner to change the date of birth in the record after confirming. He has also admitted that he is not aware whether the first respondent workman had produced the School Leaving Certificate at the time when the Provident Fund dues were transferred to the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the nomination forms were filled in. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the first respondent workman and held that the correct date of birth is 15th July, 1932 and not 31st December, 1929 as recorded by the petitioner. He, therefore, held that the first respondent workman was entitled to continue in service upto the deemed date of retirement i. e. 14th July, 1992 and was entitled to back wages and other consequential benefits on the basis of this deemed date.;