KASHI NATH SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER
LAWS(JHAR)-2001-9-14
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on September 25,2001

Kashi Nath Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the award, dated 6.2.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Reference Case No. 6/93, whereby it was held that the termination of services of the concerned workman by way of superannuation is proper and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
(2.) IT appears that the Government of Bihar, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, vide notification, dated 9.7.1993 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for jurisdiction : - - 'Whether the termination of services of Shree K.N. Sharma. Ticket No. 159863 P.No. 49901 workman. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur is proper ? If' not whether he should be reinstated on thejob or what compensation he should be paid.' The case of the workman was that his service was wrongly terminated with effect from 4. 1. 1989 by way of premature superannuation instead ol' his actual date of superannuation falling on 15.1.2005. According to the workman, he joined the service of the management in 1962 at the age of 18 years. His correct date of birth is 15.1.1944. At the time of initial appointment he stated his age as 18 years and the date of birth as 15.1.1944 but inadvertantly it was recorded as 4.1.1928 without any basis. In 1966 the workman was made permanent and in 1968 for the first time he learnt that his date of birth has not been correctly recorded by the management and since then he has been continuously representing before the management to correct the date of birth
(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the management is that the workman was absorbed in service in 1967 and at that time he did not produce any certificate or any documentary proof in support of his age. The management therefore adopted the prescribed procedure of Standing Order and the age of the petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board who assessed his age as 35 years on 3.1.1963. It is further stated that the workman was superannuated on 4.1.1988 on completion of 60 years of age. But, before that, on the request of the workman, he was allowed one year extension being found medically fit as per the Standing Order. The workman was, therefore, finally superannuated on 4.1.1989.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.