S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant (hereafter referred to as the Company) against the Award dated 6th March, 2003, pronounced on 29th March, 2003 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 37/1994, whereby and where under, the reference has been answered in favour of workman, Balram Mahto (respondent).
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the workman, Balram Mahto was appointed, to the post of Khalasi in Bokaro Steel Plant and joined on 15th November, 1977. At the time of joining the service, he filled up Personal Data Form declaring his age and submitted the same to the Management. As per Clause 8 (b) (ii) of the Standing Orders of the Company, once the workman entered his date of birth/age in the Personal Date Form, he cannot question the correctness of his age, so entered in the Personal Data Form. The Management of the Company treating the age of workman as 48 years, as on the date of his joining, retired him on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years of age with effect from 30th November, 1987. Being aggrieved, as dispute was raised by the workman represented by Bokaro Ispat Kamgar Union, Bokaro. While the workman claimed that his age was 38 years as on the date of joining and was recorded in the Personal Data Form, according to Management -Company, the workman was 48 years old on 15th November, 1977 as recorded in his Personal Data Form. The Government of Bihar in exercise of power conferred by Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. 'Whether to retire Shri Balrarn Mahto, staff No. 382193, Bokaro Steel Plant with effect from 30th November, 1987 is proper. If not, what relief he is entitled to?' By impugned Award dated 6th March, 2003, as stated above, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court answered the Reference in favour of workman in Reference Case No. 37 of 1994. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman filed a petition under Section 17 -B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for payment of full wages pending proceeding in this Court. Counsel for the petitioner -Management -Company opposed the prayer. It was submitted that even if the age of workman is accepted as 38 years as on the date of his joining, in such case, he will be treated to have retired from, service in November, 1997. Therefore, the question of payment of wages does not arise. On the other hand, according to counsel for the workman, the petition under Section 17 -B of the Act is maintainable, the provisions being mandatory. Section 17 -B of the Act deals with payment of full wages to the workman pending proceedings to the higher Courts, which reads as hereunder : 'Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workmen and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court.'
(3.) IN the present case, having heard the parties on merit, I thought it proper to decide the case on merit rather to answer the issue 'whether the petition under Section 17 -B of the Act is maintainable in the case in hand', which may be determined in some other case. From the impugned Award dated 6th March, 2003 passed in Reference Case No. 37 of 1994, it appears that the learned Presding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro discussed the evidence and on its appreciation, came to a definite finding that the age of workman was originally recorded as 38 years in his Personal Data Form, Exhibit -M -3. Learned Presiding Officer held that the age of 38 years as was recorded in the Personal Data Form of the workman was scored out and 48 years of age was inserted to the disadvantage of the workman. The workman took specific plea that the Medical Board examined him at the time of his joining and on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, his age was assessed as 38 years and was recorded in the Personal Data Form, in which he signed. The workman filed Exhibit -W -1, the medical examination report, which indicates that the Medical Board in its report written the age of workman as 38 years. In the Medical Card, Exhibit -W -2 which was prepared after his joining in 1977, the date of birth of the workman was noted as 1st February, 1940 i.e. about 38 years at the time of joining. The Management had not disputed the fact that the workman was examined by their Medical Board, which assessed his age as 38 years. Learned Presiding Officer when appreciated Exhibit -M -3, the Personal Data Form of the workman, found that the workman declared his age as 38 years, which was subsequently scored out by somebody and in its place, 48 years was inserted, in different ink and writing. The Management also failed to bring on record, either oral or documentary evidence, to show that even after crossing the age of 40 years, a displaced person can be appointed by the Management. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the learned Presiding Officer held that the workman declared his age as 38 years in his Personal Data Form, Ex -hibit -M -3. at the time of his joining the service and further held that the action of Management in retiring the workman, Balram Mahto with effect from 30th November, 1987, was improper. Unjustified and illegal. The workman was held to be entitled to continue in the service till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years of age. He was reinstated but only with 50% of his back wage.;