Case Note & Summary
The Zilla Parishad, Amravati, and its District Health Officer filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court, Amravati, dated 07.07.2003 in Complaint ULP No. 55 of 2002. The respondent employee, Bhimrao Thakare, joined service in 1970 as a Peon with his date of birth recorded as 15.07.1944. Approximately 30 years later, he applied for correction to 15.06.1947, which was initially allowed by the then District Health Officer. However, when the employer sought to retire him on attaining the age of 58 years based on the original date, the employee challenged the retirement notice before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court quashed the retirement notice and directed the employer to conduct an enquiry before taking further steps. The High Court, hearing the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, found that the Industrial Court's approach was contrary to settled law. The High Court noted that the employee had waited 30 years to seek correction and that the employer had the right to revert to the original date pending a proper enquiry. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order and allowed the employer to proceed with the retirement notice, subject to the outcome of an enquiry into the date of birth correction.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Delay and Laches - Employee sought correction of date of birth after 30 years - Employer initially allowed correction but later issued retirement notice based on original date - Industrial Court quashed retirement notice and directed enquiry - Held that the Industrial Court erred in not considering the long delay and the employer's right to revert to original date pending proper enquiry (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in quashing the retirement notice and directing an enquiry when the employee sought correction of date of birth after 30 years of service.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 07.07.2003, and directed that the employer may proceed with the retirement notice subject to the outcome of an enquiry into the date of birth correction.
Law Points
- Date of birth correction after long delay
- employer's power to revert to original date
- Industrial Court's jurisdiction under MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 94
Writ Petition No. 2942 of 2003
Shri P.B. Patil for petitioners, Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Additional GP for respondent No. 1
The Zilla Parishad, Amravati through its Chief Executive Officer and The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati
The Member, Industrial Court, Amravati and Bhimrao s/o Ramrao Thakare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court in a complaint regarding date of birth correction and retirement.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (employer) sought quashing of the Industrial Court's order dated 07.07.2003 which quashed the retirement notice and directed an enquiry.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the Industrial Court's order that set aside the retirement notice of the employee based on the original date of birth.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No. 55 of 2002, quashed the retirement notice dated 10.08.2001 and directed the employer to conduct an enquiry before taking further steps.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in quashing the retirement notice without considering the long delay in seeking correction of date of birth.
Whether the employer had the right to revert to the original date of birth pending an enquiry.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the employee sought correction after 30 years and the Industrial Court erred in quashing the retirement notice without proper material.
Petitioner contended that the employee could be compensated later if the enquiry favored him.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee who seeks correction of date of birth after a long delay cannot prevent retirement based on the original date; the employer may revert to the original date pending a proper enquiry.
Judgment Excerpts
The short contention of Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner – employer is, Respondent No. 2 entered the service in 1970 as a Peon and on that day, his date of birth was recorded as 15.07.1944.
The Industrial Court, therefore, has quashed and set aside the notice of retirement dated 10.08.2001 and has directed the employer to conduct enquiry and thereafter only to take necessary steps.
Procedural History
The employee filed Complaint ULP No. 55 of 2002 before the Industrial Court, Amravati, challenging the retirement notice. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 07.07.2003. The employer filed the present writ petition on 30.07.2003, and the High Court granted ad interim relief which continued until the final hearing.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
