- (1.) Case has been called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the respondents has remained absent on both the calls although a counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No.2 and 3.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the record that the petitioner workman was employed in 1966 and terminated in 1971. The termination was set aside by the Labour Court with a direction to pay 50% of the back wages. Writ petition by the management was dismissed. Consequently, 50% of the back wages has to be computed from the date of the award till the date of superannuation and paid to the petitioner workman. A computation is alleged to have been made by the management but subsequently some difference arose because of which the workman petitioner had to file an application under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation and payment of the dues. It appears that the date of birth of the petitioner was being treated as 1948 by the management and even the petitioner was agreeable on that date of birth and accordingly the date of retirement or superannuation was assumed to be 01.07.2008. Even the counter affidavit does not give any alternative year of birth of the petitioner.
(3.) It would, therefore, appear that this entire exercise about seeking reference to a medical board relying upon the technicalities of the procedure relating to determination of date of birth in cases of disputes, is being utilised by the management to avoid or delay making of the payment of 50% of the back wages in accordance with Labour Court award.;