Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sonabai Harchand Gurav, was employed as a Gramsevika with the Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar, on 14.01.1977. Her date of birth was recorded as 15.06.1944 based on an affidavit from her maternal uncle, though her school leaving certificate showed 15.10.1941. Over the years, the employer published seniority lists and a gazette notification showing her date of birth as 15.06.1944. However, on 13.11.1997, the employer unilaterally corrected her date of birth to 15.10.1941 in the service records, leading to her retirement on 31.10.1999 instead of 30.06.2002. The petitioner filed a complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, which was allowed by the Labour Court on 26.09.2001. The employer's revision before the Industrial Court was allowed on 13.02.2003, setting aside the Labour Court's order. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined whether the Industrial Court erred in reversing the Labour Court's decision. The court noted that the employer had accepted the date of birth as 15.06.1944 for over 20 years and had published it in seniority lists and a gazette. The employer's unilateral change without notice to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings. The High Court allowed the writ petition, restored the Labour Court's order, and directed the employer to treat the petitioner's date of birth as 15.06.1944 with consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - School Leaving Certificate - The employee's date of birth as per school leaving certificate was 15.10.1941, but she claimed it was 15.06.1944 based on an affidavit and subsequent service records. The employer unilaterally changed the date to 15.10.1941 without following proper procedure. The Labour Court allowed the complaint, but the Industrial Court reversed it. The High Court held that the employer cannot unilaterally change the date of birth without giving opportunity to the employee and without following the rules. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Correction of Service Records - The employer's action of changing the date of birth without notice to the employee amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court's finding that the employer had accepted the date of birth as 15.06.1944 for over 20 years and had published it in seniority lists and gazette was correct. (Paras 5-10) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Date of Birth - The burden to prove the correct date of birth lies on the employee. However, once the employer has accepted and acted upon a particular date for a long period, the employer cannot unilaterally revert to an earlier date without cogent evidence. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order which had allowed the employee's complaint regarding correction of date of birth in service records.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 13.02.2003, and restored the Labour Court's order dated 26.09.2001. The respondents were directed to treat the petitioner's date of birth as 15.06.1944 and grant her all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Date of birth correction
- Service records
- School leaving certificate
- Unilateral change by employer
- Natural justice
- Burden of proof
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
