M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.3.1995 passed by Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference Case No. 6 of 1990, whereby he has allowed full back wages including, admissible allowance and other benefits to the respondent No. 2 the concerned workman from the date of the retirement till 11.8.1990.
(2.) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The concerned workmen (respondent No. 2) joined the service of the petitioner -company. He retired from the service in 1987 after availing one years extension. After retirement, the workman raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. "Whether to retire Sri N.G. Ghosh, T. No. 71957 workman of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur from 13.9.1987 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled." The case of the workman is that he joined service in 1947 at the age of 18 years and his date of birth is 11.8.1929 which is recorded in the school admission register. It is stated that at the time of his employment in the Management he disclosed his date of birth as 11.8.1929 but the management inadvertently noted his date of birth as 1.11.1923. The further case of the workman is that in 1972 he requested the management to rectify the date of birth and in reply thereof the workman was directed to produce the school leaving certificate. Thereafter, in 1980 the workman was informed that the school leaving certificate was referred to the District Education Officer, Dacca who informed the management that the said certificate is not genuine. Despite the certificate of the headmaster produced by the management, the management did not take any action and superannuated him in 1987.
(3.) THE case of the management on the other hand is that the workman was employed in 1947 and his date of birth was recorded as 24 years based on the assessment of his age by the Companys Medical Officer. The workman confirmed his age by putting his signature on the service record. It is stated that the workman did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his age and he for the first time disputed his age in 1972 by producing a transfer certificate issued from the Headmaster Navakumar High English School, Dacca. The certificate was referred to the District Education Officer, Dacca for verification and it was found that the certificate was not genuine. The further case of the management is that the Age Rectification Committee in its Meeting held on 23.7.1984 decided to refer the case of the respondent No. 2 to Special Medical Board. Accordingly the workman was sent to the medical board for assessment of age and the Medical Board assessed the age of the workman as 58 years on 13.9.1984. The date of birth of the workman was accordingly rectified and the same was accepted by the workman. On the basis of the date of birth assessed by the medical board the workman was to superannuate on 13.9.1986. However, he was given one year extension of service and finally the workman was superannuated on 13.9.1987. After superannuation the workman illegally raised dispute with regard to his age and the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court after considering the facts of the case and the evidence adduced before him erroneously came to the conclusion that the management has failed to prove that the date of birth of the workman is 13.9.1926 as recorded in the service card on the basis of which he was superannuated. The Labour Court further erroneously held that the correct date of birth of the workman is 11.8.1929 and he was entitled to continue in service till 11.8.1990. Consequently the Labour Court by the impugned award directed the management to pay full back wages together with interest to the workman from 13.9.1987 to 11.8.1990.;