Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs The Presiding Officer, Central ... on 3 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(4)JCR288A(JHR)]
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.
Page 2609
1. Petitioner-Management has prayed for quashing the award dated 16.4.1997, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, at Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 15 of 1995 (Annexure-6).
Page 2610
2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication vide order dated 7.2.1995.
Whether the action of the management of Gondudih Colliery under Area No. VI of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL in superannuating Shri Barmeshwar Lall, Ex-Leave Clerk w.e.f. 1.7.1993 is justified? If not, to what relief Shri Lall is entitled?
3. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Management, submitted that column 4 of Form B Register is meant for mentioning the age and column 5 is for mentioning the details of certificate of training under the Mines Vocational Training Rules, 1966. In column 4, the age of workman was mentioned as '38' as declared by him, but in column 5 which was not meant for age or the date of birth-" 8.6.1936 as per Id. Register" was inserted by manipulation. In order to verify, the Management requested to the office of the Regional Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner about the date of birth of the workman. Vide Ext.M-2, the Regional Commissioner replied that as per the records, the date of birth of the workman was 6.2.1931. This document could not be ignored by tribunal. Form-B Register was maintained by one of the colleagues of the workman. The service excerpts and identity card were issued on the basis of the entries made in Form-B Register but surprisingly in colum-5 of Form-B Register, (which was not meant for date of birth), "8.6.1936as per Id. Register" was mentioned. On a bare perusal, it will appear that such insertion has been made in different handwriting. If the said age was incorrectly mentioned, the workman, who was an educated person and was working as a clerk should have raised objection and should not have signed in the Form-B Register. He further submitted that the award is not legally sustainable, inasmuch as the Tribunal has taken into consideration irrelevant matters and ignored the relevant aspects. Relying on State of T.N. v. T.V. Venueopalan and Hindustan Lever v. S.M. Jadhav, he submitted that at the fag end of service, the workman could not raise dispute about his age. He also submitted that in view of Ext M-2, the workman worked for two years more, by suppressing his real date of birth and declaring his age as 38 years at the time of filling up Form B Register. He lastly submitted that there is nothing to show that the Management was inimical with the workman.
4. Mr. Babhan Lal, appearing for the workman, submitted that the tribunal has rightly held that the workman was prematurely superannuated. In Form-B Register, in service excerpts and in the identity card, his date of birth was recorded as 8.6.1936 and therefore he was entitled to continue in service up to 7.6.1996. He further submitted that the agent of the colliery wrote a letter to the Personnel Manager of the Area about the date of birth but the Area Personnel Manager did not do anything on the ground that the workman did not dispute his age mentioned in his service records. He further submitted that the Management cannot allege manipulation as the Form-B Register remains in the custody of the Management. He further submitted that by mistake, the workman put his signature in Form-B Register, in which his age was mentioned as 38 years. However, he admitted that Id. Register and Service excerpts are issued on the basis of Form-B Register.
5. In Central Bank of India v. P.C. Jain in paragraph 5 it has been held that if the findings are such that no reasonable man could arrived at, on the materials on record, it amounts to perversity. In my opinion, the award suffers from such perversity.
Page 2611
6. Admittedly, ld. Register and service excerpts were issued on the basis of statutory Form B Register. Then how in Form B register the purported date of birth could be mentioned "as per ld. Register" and that too in the column not meant for date of birth. At the time of filling up Form-B, workman declared his age as 38 years as on 17.10.1971, and put his signature. He was a literate persona clerk. It is difficult to believe that it was a mistake on his part. The age is the most important entry in Form B register concerning the workman, on which his service period depends. Other entries are formal in nature. Admittedly Form B register was prepared prior to 1976, as the Identity Card, said to be based on Form B Register, itself was issued in 1976. The notice of superannuation was served in 1993. No objection was raised by the workman for about twenty years.
7. Moreover, the Tribunal disbelieved Ext-M-2 dated 15.6.1993 on the ground that by this letter the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) replied to the Management's query within three days but when the P.F. Register was called for by the Tribunal on the petition of the workman, the CMPF office said that the declaration Form-A of the workman was not available in the office. It may be noted here that genuineness of Ext-M-2 was not disputed by any body. There is no reason why the Coal Mines Provident Fund Office will issue Ext-M-2 incorrectly. Only because the said declaration was not available in the office after some years, Ext M-2 could not be ignored. In my opinion, the Tribunal has taken into consideration irrelevant considerations in ignoring Ext-M-2.
8. I am conscious of the limitation in interfering with an award, but in my opinion, the award is not legally sustainable. The tribunal has ignored important and relevant aspects and took into account irrelevant matters, as noticed above. The conclusions of the tribunal, are perverse and do not reasonably follow from the evidence on record.
9. On the whole, I am satisfied that the impugned award calls for interference. It cannot be sustained for the reasons aforesaid. Accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.