- (1.) IN this writ application the Management of Jairmpur colliery being the petitioner has challenged the award dated 2.1.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 2 in Reference Case no. 193 of 1999 whereby the Tribunal while answering the Reference in favour of the respondent Union holding that the Management is not justified in superannuating the workman namely Shashi Rawani w.e.f. 16.8.1997, has further directed the Management to send the concerned workman to the apex Medical Board for assessment of his age. On a dispute being raised by the respondent Union on behalf of the said workman in the matter of superannuation, a Reference was made to the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the following terms of Reference: " Whether the action of the Management of Jayrampur Colliery of M/s BCCL in superannuating Sri Shashi Rawani, Fitter, with effect from 16.8.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "
(2.) THE stand taken by the sponsoring Union on behalf of the workman was that the workman concerned was originally appointed on 8.7.1971 by the erstwhile Management of Jayrampur Colliery Company Private Limited and his date of birth was recorded as 31.7.1940 in all statutory records of the colliery including the form B Register. The colliery was subsequently taken over on 17.10.1971 and nationalized with effect from 1.5.1972. After re -organization, the said colliery was renamed as Jayrampur colliery under the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The Management issued Identity Card to concerned workman in the year 1974 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 31.7.1940 which was duly signed by the Senior Personnel Officer, the authorized representative of the Management. Being under the impression that the date of birth was correctly recorded in his service record, the concerned workman bona fidely expected his date of superannuation as 31.7.2000. However, by a notice of superannuation served on 26.8.1997, the workman concerned was informed that he would be superannuating on and from 28.7.1997. He was accordingly stopped by the Management from performing any work with effect from 28.7.1997. The workman challenged the act of superannuation as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. As against this, the stand taken by the Management is that on 8.7.1971 i. e the date of his appointment, the age of the workman concerned was recorded in the Form B register of the Company as 38 years. The Form B Register, being a statutory record of the entries, bears legal value and is binding upon the workmen as also upon the Management unless any serious contradiction is exposed. According to the aforesaid date of birth, the workman on attaining the age of 60 years was expected to superannuate in the month of July, 1993, but inadvertently, it escaped the notice of the Management and as a consequence, the workmen was allowed to continue in service for four years more. When the mistake was detected, the petitioner was accordingly given notice of superannuation and he was superannuated on 16.8.1997.
(3.) THE Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties in course of enquiry and on examining the entries made in the form B Register of the colliery in respect of the workman had found reasons not to place absolute reliance on the entries in the form B Register on the ground that the entries in the various columns from 1, 2, 3 and columns 5, 6 and 7 of the Register were found to be in one ink, and the letters appeared to have almost faded out, but the entries in column 4 was in a distinct ink and was apparently made at a later stage. The Tribunal had also observed that the entries from Serial 111 to 120 were recorded on the same page in form B register, whereas the entries in respect of age were recorded in respect of four workmen, but the entries in column no. 4 regarding the age were left blank. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that in the computerized identity card issued by the petitioner, the date of birth was recorded as 31.7.1940 and though an attempt was made on behalf of the Management to dispute the entries on the ground that the attempt was made to erase out the said date of birth, but there was no evidence on record to suggest that the attempt of erasing the entries was made by the workman. While recording its finding that there is a serious dispute regarding the date of birth of the concerned workman in view of the discrepancy pointed out, the Tribunal set aside the order of termination of the workman and directed the Management to send the workman to the apex medical board for assessment of his age. It is this order that is under challenge in this writ petition.;