Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), challenged the judgment and order dated 13.1.1997 of the Industrial Court, Solapur, in Revision (ULP) No. 76 of 1995. The Industrial Court had allowed the revision filed by the respondent, Kishen Laxman Bade, a lineman who joined service on 31.7.1959. The respondent's date of birth recorded in the service book was 11.9.1937, and he sought correction to 1.3.1939 by application dated 21.12.1994, after 35 years and 5 months of service. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Latur, alleging wrongful superannuation w.e.f. 30.9.1995 and seeking stay of retirement, correction of date of birth, and service benefits for about 18 months. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint on 29.9.1995, one day before retirement, citing overwriting in the service book. The respondent then filed Revision (ULP) No. 76 of 1995 before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision, set aside the Labour Court's judgment, and directed the petitioners to correct the date of birth to 1.3.1939 and pay wages and retiral benefits for the additional period. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court noted that none appeared for the petitioners and heard the respondent's counsel. The respondent's counsel argued that the Industrial Court's judgment was based on record and proceedings, specifically paragraphs 15 to 18, and was not perverse. The High Court found no perversity in the Industrial Court's findings and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order to correct the date of birth and grant consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Industrial Court's Revisional Powers - The Industrial Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, set aside the Labour Court's dismissal of the complaint and directed correction of the employee's date of birth from 11.9.1937 to 1.3.1939, based on evidence on record. The High Court declined to interfere, finding no perversity in the Industrial Court's findings. (Paras 2-6) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Industrial Court Orders - The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, will not upset findings of the Industrial Court unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the Industrial Court's judgment was based on record and proceedings, and no perversity was shown, the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's order directing correction of the respondent's date of birth from 11.9.1937 to 1.3.1939 and granting consequential benefits suffers from any perversity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 13.1.1997 directing correction of the respondent's date of birth from 11.9.1937 to 1.3.1939 and payment of wages and retiral benefits for the additional period.
Law Points
- Correction of date of birth in service records
- Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against Industrial Court orders
- Delay in seeking correction of date of birth
