Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.06.1995 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region in Case No.LL-2 of 1990, Manphool Singh Vs. M/s U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Unit Saharanpur. Copy of the said order is Annexure-VI to the writ petition. Respondent No.2, Manphool Singh had claimed that his correct date of birth was 10.09.1933. In the records of the employer petitioner, the date of birth was mentioned as 07.11.1930, hence on 11.09.1990 information was sent by the petitioner employer to respondent No.2 workman that he would be retiring on 07.11.1990. The workman claimed that he should be permitted to work until 09.09.1993 when he would be completing the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Deputy Labour Commissioner held that in the service book date of birth was mentioned as 10.09.1933 and service book was signed by the employer on 04.08.1976. It is also mentioned that service book was provided to the workman, however in one document date of birth of the workman was mentioned as 10.09.1933. The Deputy Labour Commissioner concluded that it was not clear that on what basis employer recorded 07.11.1930 as date of birth of respondent No.2, workman. Ultimately, it was held that date of birth of workman was 10.09.1933 as asserted by him and it was directed that three years' salary should be given to him.
Whatever may be the basis of recording the date of birth in the service record, only few months before retirement an employee cannot be permitted to assert that it was wrongly written. Under Clause-VI of Chapter LL of Standing Orders applicable to Sugar Factories in U.P. published in Gazette dated 27.09.1988, it is mentioned that workman could get his recorded age modified within one year of enforcement of Standing Orders. The said standing orders suppressed earlier Standing Orders issued through G.O. dated 03.10.1958. Learned counsel for workman respondent has placed reliance upon a Division Bench authority of this Court reported in M/s Deoria Sugar Mills Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 1977 L.I.C. 102. In the said authority interpreting old Standing Orders of 1958, it has been mentioned that the evidence other than the evidence mentioned in Clause-LL of Standing Orders may also be considered. Some more authorities following the said judgment have also been cited.
In the provident fund records, date of birth of the workman was recorded as 07.11.1930. The said record may not be said to be conclusive, however a very strong presumption of correctness of entry of date of birth made therein arises. Workman did not adduce any evidence except W-2, some documents which stated to have been signed by employer on 04.08.1976 and 26.01.1980. The nature of those documents, who signed them and what was the occasion of sending them to the workman have not been discussed in the impugned order. Apart from these two documents, the workman did not file any evidence like High School certificate or entry of date of birth in municipal records etc. In case dispute is raised before sufficient time from retirement and decided in favour of the workman, then he can work for more time, however if dispute is raised just before retirement, then only purpose is to get salary without work as decision of dispute takes some time. Supreme Court in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad AIR 2001 SC 72, State of U.P. and Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya AIR 2005 SC 4192 and "State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi" AIR 2006 SC 2735 has held that at the fag end of service an employee cannot be permitted to seek correction of his date of birth. The aspect of social justice argued by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is utterly misconceived. Continuing a workman for a very long time is against the social justice as the list of persons waiting for service is quite long and always increasing. Social justice is better served if after a certain period/ age a workman is retired and another person at his place is appointed.
In this writ petition through interim order dated 10.10.1995 operation of the impugned award was stayed. Accordingly, the impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained. Writ petition is therefore allowed. Impugned order is set aside.
Order Date :- 03.03.2011 NLY