R.K.MERATHIA,J. - (1.) PETITIONER -Management has prayed for quashing the award dated 16.4.1997, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, at Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 15 of 1995 (Annexure -6).
(2.) THE following dispute was referred for adjudication vide order dated 7.2.1995. Whether the action of the management of Gondudih Colliery under Area No. VI of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL in superannuating Shri Barmeshwar Lall, Ex -Leave Clerk w.e.f. 1.7.1993 is justified? If not, to what relief Shri Lall is entitled? Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Management, submitted that column 4 of Form B Register is meant for mentioning the age and column 5 is for mentioning the details of certificate of training under the Mines Vocational Training Rules, 1966. In column 4, the age of workman was mentioned as '38' as declared by him, but in column 5 which was not meant for age or the date of birth -' 8.6.1936 as per Id. Register' was inserted by manipulation. In order to verify, the Management requested to the office of the Regional Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner about the date of birth of the workman. Vide Ext.M -2, the Regional Commissioner replied that as per the records, the date of birth of the workman was 6.2.1931. This document could not be ignored by tribunal. Form -B Register was maintained by one of the colleagues of the workman. The service excerpts and identity card were issued on the basis of the entries made in Form -B Register but surprisingly in colum -5 of Form -B Register, (which was not meant for date of birth), '8.6.1936 -as per Id. Register' was mentioned. On a bare perusal, it will appear that such insertion has been made in different handwriting. If the said age was incorrectly mentioned, the workman, who was an educated person and was working as a clerk should have raised objection and should not have signed in the Form -B Register. He further submitted that the award is not legally sustainable, inasmuch as the Tribunal has taken into consideration irrelevant matters and ignored the relevant aspects. Relying on : (1994)6SCC302 State of T.N. v. T.V. Venueopalan and : (2001)ILLJ1695SC Hindustan Lever v. S.M. Jadhav, he submitted that at the fag end of service, the workman could not raise dispute about his age. He also submitted that in view of Ext M -2, the workman worked for two years more, by suppressing his real date of birth and declaring his age as 38 years at the time of filling up Form B Register. He lastly submitted that there is nothing to show that the Management was inimical with the workman.
(3.) MR . Babhan Lal, appearing for the workman, submitted that the tribunal has rightly held that the workman was prematurely superannuated. In Form -B Register, in service excerpts and in the identity card, his date of birth was recorded as 8.6.1936 and therefore he was entitled to continue in service up to 7.6.1996. He further submitted that the agent of the colliery wrote a letter to the Personnel Manager of the Area about the date of birth but the Area Personnel Manager did not do anything on the ground that the workman did not dispute his age mentioned in his service records. He further submitted that the Management cannot allege manipulation as the Form -B Register remains in the custody of the Management. He further submitted that by mistake, the workman put his signature in Form -B Register, in which his age was mentioned as 38 years. However, he admitted that Id. Register and Service excerpts are issued on the basis of Form -B Register.;