- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant -Management of M/s Sharat Coking Coal Limited against the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1477 of 2007* by which the writ petition had been allowed directing reinstatement of the respondent workman alol1gwith back -wages for the period during which he was compelled to remain out of job.
(2.) TO highlight the controversy, it would be relevant to record that the respondent -workman was duly discharging his duties with the appellant -Management since 1977 when he was taken in service arid after his appointment his date of birth admittedly was recorded 29 years ago, when he was due to retire in 2017. However, the appellant -Management raised dispute regarding date of birth of the respondent -workman and referred him before the Board for medical examination. The respondent -workman appeared before the Medical Board where his age was assessed more than what was recorded in Form -B register which was filled at the time of his entry into the service. The Management relying upon the view taken by the Medical Board, superannuated the workman on 30th September, 2006. The respondent workman feeling aggrieved by the order of his superannuation, filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the entry of date of birth of the respondent -workman in Form -B register of the appellant -BCCL could not have been doubted by the Management so as to refer him to the Medical Board for assessment of his age and hence, the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order of superannuation and directed for his reinstatement with back -wages during which he was out of service. The learned Single Judge also imposed cost on the appellant -Management holding therein that frivolous litigation had been filed by the appellant -Management before the Court and the respondent -workman was unnecessarily made to suffer his superannuation, as a result of which he remained out of job. This is how this appeal has been filed by the appellant -Management before us.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Management has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and contended that the respondent herein i.e. the workman, was rightly referred to the Medical Board for assessment of his age as his date of birth 'vas not recorded in the order of his appointment.;