- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Award passed by respondent No. 2, Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, dated 8th August, 2001 (pronounced on 28.1.2002) in Reference Case No. 21 of 1994, is under challenge, whereby he has held that initial entry of age of the workman made in the personal data form as 31 years is correct and the Management was not justified in superannuating him with effect from 30th September, 1991, as such he is entitled to continue in service thereafter till he attained the age of superannuation.
(2.) It is the case of the Management-petitioner herein that in the year 1973 the workman entered into the service of Bokaro Steel Authority and stated his age to be 40 years at the relevant point of time, which was entered into his personal data form on the very same date showing as 21.9.1973 and the employee had also put his L.T.I. on the said personal data form on the very same date. It is also submitted that the words 31 years' earlier written by him at Column No. 13 was scored out by recording 40 years as on 21.9.1973 and the same is in the handwriting of the employee himself.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid fact, his date of birth as on 21.9.1973 was treated to be final age of 40 years and accordingly after 18 years of service he was superannuated on reaching the age of 58 years i.e. with effect from 30th September, 1991, for which a notice of superannuation was issued on him dated 4.6.1991. It is further submitted that the petitioner received all his post retirement dues including provident fund and gratuity. Thereafter, he raised a dispute through the Union before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, alleging that he has been forcibly retired on 30th September, 1991, although his actual age at the time of entry in service was 31 years. Admittedly the employee had not produced any document as required under the standing orders No. 8(b)(i) of the company such as birth certificate, school leaving certificate, insurance policy and Horoscope. The workman had also not complained about the age entered into his personal data form at the time of entry in service and only after his retirement has raised this dispute, which should not have been referred for industrial adjudication and even if referred should have been refused by the Industrial Tribunal.;