RAJNAGAR TEXTILE MILLS Vs. TANAYKUTNAR RAYCHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The petitioner, a textile mill, is a unit of National Textile Corporation (Gujarat) Ltd. The respondent was its employee in the Weaver Section. The respondent was employed at the Mills of the petitioner-Company in 1965. The petitioner-employer has recorded the respondent's date of birth as 1933, at the time of joining service. Under the agreement governing the age of superannuation, Annexure 'B' every employee of the technical and supervisory staff is to retire on completion of the age of 60 years. He is to be served with a notice of retirement three months prior to his completing the age of 60 years. However, the agreement also envisaged extension of service upto the completion of 62 years, provided the employee of the technical and supervisory staff is putting regular attendance in work and that he is otherwise found medically fit. The criteria of regular attendance in work shall be his being present for 240 days in last 12 months.

(3.) By Notice dated 2nd June 1992, the respondent-workman was informed that he has completed the age of superannuation and he is to retire. The workman resisted that he has not completed the age of 60 years and has raised a dispute about his premature retirement by the aforesaid notice. The workman contended that he was born in 1933 and he will complete the age of 60 years only in 1993. The notice dated 2nd June 1992 prematurely retiring him from service abruptly by the management before attaining the age of 60 was challenged as invalid. The petitioner-Company contended that though as per the record of the company, the date of birth of employee is 2-2-1933, but the service record of the respondent with the previous employer and the Provident Fund Account opened with the previous employer showed that in 1965 he has disclosed his age to be 34 years in the nomination form under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. As per declaration his date of birth in the said EPF Account was also recorded as 1931. Thus, having already completed the age of 60 years before issuance of notice as he has already worked with the company beyond the age of Superannuation an order retiring with immediate effect was served treating him to be the person born in 1931 and having already attained the age of superannuation of 60 years, though as per the service record of the company, he has not completed the age of 60 years. On this dispute being referred to the Labour Court, the Labour Court found the date of birth of the respondent-workman to be of 1-1-1933 and the order dated 2-6-1993 retiring the respondent with immediate effect to be invalid. However, the Labour Court further directed that since he has already completed the age of superannuation he is entitled to relief of declaration that he continued in service upto the age of completion of 62 years of age. That order was challenged by the employer in appeal before the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, which confirmed the order of the Labour Court.