TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner (M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited) has filed the instant writ application challenging the Award dated 3.1.2000 (pronounced on 9.9.2000) in Reference Case No. 7 of 1991 (Annexure 1) which has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby and where -under, he held that the correct date of birth of the concerned workman is 1. 3.1937 and, therefore, this termination by way of superannuation was wrong and unjustified. He, accordingly, set aside the said Award and directed the management to pay all back wages together with consequential benefits treating him to be in service till 28.2.1997.
(2.) THE case, briefly stated, is that the concerned workman was employed from 28.2.1961 as a Welder in the Automobile Division of the Company and at the time of his employment, he had stated and declared his date of birth as 1.3.1937. According to him, he was sent for medical check up before joining and the Chief Medical Officer examined him on 25.2.1961 and estimated his date of birth as 24 years. The concerned workman also made out a case that at the time of filing up of his personal data in the form prescribed in the year 1962, he had produced his School Leaving Certificate and had declared his date of birth as 1.3.1937. According to him, his superannuation, therefore, should have been after he attained the age of 60 years as per the certified standing order and, accordingly, he should have been superannuated on 28.2.1997. His further case was that for the first time by letter dated 9/10.2.1988 he was informed that he was going to be 60 years of age and would, accordingly, superannuate on and from 24.2.1989. He protested and stated that there is some manipulation and alteration in his service book and that his superannuation was illegal, arbitrary etc. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued and has attacked the impugned Award (Annexure 1) by submitting that what would be the correct date of birth of a person could not have been a subject matter of an industrial dispute. Moreover the Union could not have espoused the cause because he was not even their member. He has further submitted that the demand that was raised on 20.2.1989 itself had made a request that the concerned workman should be allowed to be in service till 28.2.1996 but the award allowed him to remain in service for one more year i.e. till 28.2.1997 and, therefore, to that extent, the award is mechanical. In support of his contention that such a dispute could not have been a subject matter of an industrial dispute, Mr. V.P. Singh has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2238. According to him. Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") defines "industrial dispute" which means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non -employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any persons.
(3.) ACCORDING to him, a declaration of a correct date of birth is clearly out of the purview of industrial adjudication and it could only have formed the subject matter of any other forum including taking recourse to the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, but definitely not under the provisions as provided under Section 10 of the Act. It is in that context that Mr. V.P. Singh has relied upon the aforementioned judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India and submits that clear guidelines have been given by the said Apex Court as to what would be and/or would not be industrial disputes. Since the dispute was not an industrial dispute, therefore, the only remedy for the workman lay before the civil Court. He further submits that superannuation is a natural phenomenon and it takes effect when the concerned person reaches a particular age by efflux of time. Consequently, after having reached the age of superannuation, the concerned workman/concerned person cannot turn around and create a dispute with regard to his superannuation or create a controversy by terming the same to be illegal or arbitrary.;