Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vithabai w/o Govind Pawale and Hussainabi Diwankhan, were daily wage workers employed by the Forest Department. They joined duties on 01/04/1992 and 23/03/1981 respectively without producing any birth records. Both were illiterate and never admitted to school, and no birth record was maintained by the Gram Panchayat. The respondents recorded their date of birth as 01/02/1955 and 01/03/1957 in the daily wage record and seniority list. From 20/11/2006 to 24/05/2012, the respondents repeatedly called upon the petitioners to produce age proof. When they failed, the respondents subjected them to medical examination. The Medical Board concluded that petitioner No.1 was 56 years old as of July 2007 and petitioner No.2 was 58 years old. Based on these reports, the respondents treated the petitioners as superannuated. The petitioners filed Complaint (ULP) No.36/2012 before the Labour Court, which allowed the complaint relying on the seniority list entries. The respondents filed Revision (ULP) No.80/2014 before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the Labour Court's judgment. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition. The High Court framed the issue whether the Medical Board report deserves consideration in the absence of birth records. The Court noted that the petitioners conceded they had no birth records and the seniority list entries were made without any supporting documents. The Court held that the Medical Board report is reliable for age determination, especially for illiterate workers who never attended school. The Court found that the Labour Court erred in relying on the seniority list without verifying the basis of the entries. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's judgment and confirming that the petitioners were superannuated based on the Medical Board report.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age Determination - Medical Board Report - In the absence of birth records, school records, or Gram Panchayat records, the report of the Medical Board defining the age of the petitioners deserves consideration - The Labour Court erred in relying on the seniority list which was not supported by any documentary evidence - Held that the Medical Board report is reliable for determining the age of illiterate workers who never attended school (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether in the absence of any birth record or school or Gram Panchayat record, the report of the Medical Board defining the age of the petitioners deserves consideration or not.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The judgment of the Industrial Court dated 22/07/2015 is upheld. The petitioners are deemed to have been superannuated based on the Medical Board report.
Law Points
- Medical Board report is reliable for age determination in absence of birth records
- seniority list entries not conclusive without supporting documents
- burden of proof on employee to establish age
- Labour Court's reliance on seniority list without verification is erroneous
