Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, a cooperative sugar factory, challenged the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, Pune, which had directed it to correct the date of birth of respondent No.1, Janu Gajaba Zagade, an employee who had retired on 31st May 2000. The respondent had entered service in 1962 as a Slipboy and later became Mukadam. At the time of joining, he recorded his date of birth as 1st June 1940. On 7th April 2000, the factory issued a notice informing him that he would retire on 31st May 2000 upon attaining age 60. On 5th May 2000, the respondent applied claiming his date of birth was wrongly recorded and should be 1st June 1945, relying on a school leaving certificate. The factory did not accept the application and retired him. The respondent filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Labour Court, which allowed the complaint and directed the factory to correct the date of birth and treat him as continuing in service. The Industrial Court dismissed the factory's revision. The High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the employee to establish that the recorded date of birth is wrong. The respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that the entry was made erroneously or that the school leaving certificate relied upon was genuine. The Labour Court had erred in shifting the burden onto the employer. The High Court also noted that the application was made just 26 days before retirement, which raised suspicion. The court set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court and dismissed the complaint.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Burden of Proof - The employee must prove that the date of birth recorded in service records is incorrect by producing cogent evidence. The employer is not bound to accept the employee's claim merely because it is made. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Opportunity of Hearing - Before making any correction in the date of birth, the employer must give the employee an opportunity of being heard. However, the employee cannot unilaterally demand correction at the fag end of service without sufficient proof. (Paras 3-8) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 28 read with Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Unfair Labour Practice - Complaint regarding date of birth dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court can entertain such complaint if the employer's action is arbitrary or mala fide. (Paras 1-2) D) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 44 - Revision - The Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law or jurisdiction. It cannot reappreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in directing the employer to correct the date of birth of the employee and treat him as continuing in service beyond the date of superannuation based on the employee's application made shortly before retirement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, and dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on employee to establish date of birth is wrong
- Employer must give opportunity to employee before correcting date of birth
- Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain complaint regarding date of birth dispute
- Industrial Court's revisional powers are limited
