- (1.) Respondent No. 2, workman stood retired on 30.6.1992 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. In the record her date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1934. After the retirement a reference was made to the Labour Court vide Reference dated 22.7.1992 to decide as to what is the correct date of birth of the workman. The learned Tribunal vide impugned Award dated 31st July, 1996 had directed the Management to treat 5.10.1936 as the correct date of birth of the petitioner and to pay the wages for the period, the petitioner otherwise would have worked after 30.6.1992.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved, Management had filed the present writ petition way back in the year 1996. Implementation of the impugned Award was stayed by this Court vide order dated 1.9.1997. In the order sheet of 24.9.2003, it is specifically mentioned that workman respondent no. 2 has died in the year 1998. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 2 workman.
(3.) It is settled principle of law that the dispute with regard to the date of birth should not ordinarily be allowed to be agitated at the fag end of the service career or more particularly after the retirement. As per the prevailing practice in the Corporation, dispute with regard to date of birth of the workman was referred to the Medical Board and as per the opinion of the Medical Board the date of birth of the respondent no. 2 was assessed and recorded as 1.7.1934.;