AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) IN the present writ application the petitioner i.e. the Management of Damodar Valley Corporation, has challenged the award of the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dhanbad dated 6.4.1996 in Reference Case No. 15 of 1994 whereby the learned Labour Court held that the age declared by the concerned workman at the time of entry into the service of corporation had not been properly recorded and he has been retired from service with effect from 28.2.1991 i.e. 8 years before attaining the age of superannuation. It was further held that premature retirement amounted to "retrenchment" within the meaning of Sec.2(00) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and since there has been no compliance of the mandatory requirement of law contained in Sec.25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Therefore, the order of retirement is bad in the eye of law and accordingly, the management was directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Technician Grade -II and just six days prior of his retirement i.e. on 22.2.1991 he raised Industrial Dispute that his date of birth in the Service Book, Descriptive Roll and Medical Certificate mentioning his date of birth to be 17.2.1933 recorded and he demanded correction of his date of birth six days prior to his retirement and requested that the date 17.2.1933 should be corrected and changed to 23.12.1940. At the instance of the respondent No. 1 the State of Bihar referred the following dispute for adjudication : - - "Whether to retire Shri Dwarika Mistry. Technician, Grade -II(Carpenter) MM and EW Division, Damodar Valley Corporation from 28.2.1992 is proper ? If not what reliefs Shri Mistry is entitled - According to the petitioner, the concerned workman right from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement he did not submit any school leaving certificate or even a chit of paper regarding his date of birth. Therefore, he was examined medically and his age was assessed and his date of birth was entered in the Descriptive Roll as 17.2.1933 and said date of birth on 17.2.1933 was accepted by the concerned workman who made his initial on it which is annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ application. The further case of the writ petitioner is that even on 6.8.1976 the respondent No. 1 was again examined by a Medical Board and his age was assessed as 43 years which was duly signed by him confirming the fact that he was born in 1933. The document, which was marked as Ext M -3 before the Labour Court, has been annexed as Annexure -9 to the present writ application. The further case of the writ petitioner is that the learned Labour Court failed to consider the Ext. M -3 i.e. Annexure -9 and therefore, the award in question suffers from total non -consideration of Ext. M -3 which was a conclusive proof of age and date of birth of the respondent No. 1. II is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Labour Court ought to have held that the concerned workman cannot be allowed to raise industrial dispute regarding correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his career and further that in view of the Ext. M -3 which shows that the date of birth of the concerned respondent was recorded after he was medically examined and he put his signature and therefore, the concerned workman was not entitled to any relief.
(3.) ON the other hand Mr. V.R Singh learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 relying on the decision in the case of Calcutta Port Shramik Union V/s. The Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2168, has argued regarding the scope of writ application against the award of the Labour Court and he has further argued that the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court should not disturb by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.;