Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Bhaiyya Ram S/o Gaur Singh Halba, P.No. 852415, L.R.P. Rail Mill R/o
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:4215 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPL No. 51 of 2019 1 - Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Through Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai., Chhattisgarh 2 - Manager (Personal), Rail And Structure Mill, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhaiyya Ram S/o Gaur Singh Halba, P.No. 852415, L.R.P. Rail Mill R/o Village - Loandi, Post - Khapari, Thana - Balod, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Presiding Officer Labour Court, Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - President State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh At Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners :
Legal Reasoning
Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nitikesh Gupta, Advocate, For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.01.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- -2- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 06.02.2009 (Anenxure P-16) passed by the respondent No.3 by a suitable writ by upholding the action of the petitioners as just and proper. 10.2. Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court feels fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned State Industrial Court, Raipur in Appeal No. 70/C.G.I.R. Act/A-II/2008 dated 06.02.2009, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 was allowed and an order was passed to correct his date of birth from 10.10.1948 to 12.04.1956. 3) Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. Respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 31 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court Durg claiming therein a direction to correct his date of birth i.e. 10.10.1948 to 12.04.1946, inter alia, on the basis of school leaving certificate issued by the Government Primary School Pondi, Balod, in the year 2000. B. The petitioners herein filed a written statement and denied the claim made by respondent No.1. It was specifically stated that initially, the petitioner was engaged with a contractor namely, Mr. U.C. Jain in Dallirajhara Mines of BSP. C. It is further stated that respondent No.1 had submitted Form-B, wherein he had declared his age as 27 years on the date of -3- commencement of his employment i.e. 10.10.1975. It is stated that the school leaving certificate was issued by the Principal of the aforesaid School without there being any foundation. It is also pleaded that respondent No.1 moved an application for correction of the date of birth at the fag end of his service on 29.03.2007, whereas he was going to retire on 31.12.2008. D. Respondent No.1 examined himself and the Principal of the said School, whereas an officer of the petitioners was examined before the learned Labour Court and various documents were exhibited. E. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 22.10.2008 dismissed the claim of respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Industrial Court and the same was allowed vide order 06.02.2009. 4) Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that one Manrakhan, Headmaster of the Govt. Primary School Pondi, Balod, was examined and in examination-in-chief, he stated that the School leaving certificate was issued by him. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the school leaving certificate had not been entered in the school admission register (Dakhil Khariz Panji). Respondent No.1 in cross-examination stated that initially, he was engaged by a contractor and while submitting the document i.e. Form-B, he disclosed his age i.e. 1-20 years, but his age is recorded in that form as 27 years. He admitted the fact that all the statutory forms were signed by him. -4- He admitted his signatures. He further admitted the fact that 1.1/2 years ago, he approached the concerned School to obtain the school leaving certificate and in this regard, an affidavit was given before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balod. He also admitted the fact that on his instance, in the service book, his date of birth was recorded as 10.10.1948. Dr. N. K. Shukla, Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Industrial Court without considering the evidence led by the parties, set-aside the order passed by the Labour Court. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shukla and submit that the learned Industrial Court passed the order on the basis of the school leaving certificate, evidence of respondent No.1 and the evidence of the headmaster of the concerned school. He would further submit that the management could not prove the fact that the correct date of birth of respondent No.1 was 10.10.1948. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of S.C. Verma v. Union of India reported in (2000) 4 MPHT 384(DB), wherein, it has been held that the school certificate showed the date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 18.05.1943, but the learned Central Administrative Tribunal failed to consider those documents, and therefore, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was set-aside. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. -5- 7) In the present case, no document was submitted by respondent No.1 before the petitioners at the time of joining of services and his date of birth i.e.10.10.1948 was recorded on his instance. The statutory documents and the service books were filled at the time of joining of services and all those documents were signed by respondent No.1. According to the service records, respondent No.1 was going to retire on 31.12.2008, whereas the application before the learned labour Court under Section 31(3) CGIR Act was moved on 29.03.2007. It would be worthy to mention here that prior to 29.03.2007, respondent No.1 never raised any objection with regard to his date of birth nor did he make any application for correction of his date of birth. It can safely be held that the application for correction of date of birth was moved at the fag end of service. 8) Respondent No.1 himself admitted in his evidence that 1 &1/2 years prior to retirement, he approached the Government Primary School, and he obtained the school leaving certificate, wherein, his date of birth was recorded as 12.04.1956. The headmaster of that school has admitted in cross-examination that entry made in the school leaving certificate was not mentioned in Ex.P/1 & P/2 i. e. the school admission register. Respondent No.1 further admitted in his cross- examination that he signed the statutory document and he never raised any objection with regard to those entries. Respondent No.1 also failed to take a plea of ulterior motive or malice against the management, while recording his date of birth. 9) In the matter of S.C. Verma (supra), the High Court M. P. set-aside the order -6- passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that in the school certificates, the date of birth was recorded as 18.05.1943, whereas there was a different date of birth. 10) In the present case, respondent No.1 could not produce any school certificate to establish his correct date of birth; though the school leaving certificate was obtained by respondent No.1 prior to his retirement i.e. 1 & ½ years, but he approached the learned Labour Court on 29.03.2007 and with regard to delay, he has not submitted his explanation. The learned Industrial Court only on the basis of evidence of the headmaster of the school held that the correct date of birth of respondent No.1 was 12.04.1956, which appears to be erroneous, being contrary to the documentary as well as oral evidence. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure P-16) is hereby set-aside. 12) Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost. (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Sd/- Nadim