Gujarat High Court
Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Workmen C/O.Tata Chemicals Skilled ... on 17 February, 2017
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/19553/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19553 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
TATA CHEMICALS LTD.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
WORKMEN C/O.TATA CHEMICALS SKILLED MAZDOOR SANGH &
1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MUKESH H RATHOD, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 17/02/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. V. K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for respondent no.1.
Page 1 of 7
HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:22:46 IST 2017
C/SCA/19553/2006 JUDGMENT
2. In present petition, the petitioner company has
challenged award dated 28/03/2006 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.377 of 1992 whereby the learned Tribunal set aside the action and order of the present petitioner company of reliving the respondent no.1 i.e. original claimant from service on the ground of superannuation.
3. The petitioner company has challenged the award essentially on the ground that the respondent no.1 i.e. original claimant never raised any dispute with regard to date of his birth which was recorded in the register of the company during entire tenure of the service and only after he attained age of superannuation but he raised the dispute only when the company served advance notice informing him about the date of superannuation. Relying on the decision in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. S. M. Jadhav and another reported in (2001) 4 SCC 52, learned counsel for the company submitted that dispute raised at the fag end of service with regard to date of birth should not have been entertained, however, learned Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and though the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 11/08/1990 as per the details recorded in the register of the Company as well as in the PF record, the learned Tribunal directed the company to pay full wages to the claimant for almost 8 years i.e. from 11/08/1990 when he was relieved from the service on the ground of superannuation to the date which the claimant claimed to be his birth date i.e. 03/03/1998. Learned advocate for the petitioner company submitted that the impugned award is Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:22:46 IST 2017 C/SCA/19553/2006 JUDGMENT erroneous and unreasonable since relevant facts have been ignored and the principle explained by Hon'ble Apex Court has not been considered.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for the claimant submitted that learned Tribunal relied on the certificate issued by the Municipal Authority on the basis of the entry registered in the record of the Municipality at the time of claimant's birth and that therefore, there is no illegality or error in the Tribunal's judgment. He also submitted that the claimant was not aware about the details mentioned in the register of the company on the basis of medical examination and that therefore, the said details cannot be relied upon as against the details mentioned in the certificate issued by the Municipal Authority.
5. In rejoinder, Mr. V. K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner company submitted that there are serious and apparent discrepancies with regard to the name of claimant's father and claimant's surname in the certificate issued by the Municipal Authority and that therefore the said discrepancy should not have been ignored by the learned Tribunal.
6. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the company and learned advocate appearing for the claimant. I have also considered material available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that at the time when the claimant joined the service with the company, he did not submit any document related to or which would prove/support his claim Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:22:46 IST 2017 C/SCA/19553/2006 JUDGMENT about birth date much less the certificate allegedly issued by the Municipal Authority. The claimant also did not submit any cogent evidence with regard to his birth date at the time when he joined the service of the company.
8. It is also not in dispute that the certificate which the claimant submitted before the learned Labour Court was never submitted by him during his entire service tenure with the company and even at the time when the company served the notice. It is also not in dispute that there are certain discrepancies in the details mentioned in the certificate placed on record by the claimant and there are anomalies with regard to name of the claimant's father and claimant's surname.
9. It is also necessary to note that during the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the person who allegedly prepared and issued the certificate and/or the officer who signed the certificate was not examined by the claimant but some other employee of the Municipal Corporation was examined who had no personal knowledge about the details recorded in the certificate and/or the register of the Municipality. The person who was examined before the labour court was not the person who had examined the five decade old record of the Municipal Corporation and/or written/prepared the certificate but some other person was examined by the claimant.
10. Therefore, the company has raised objection with regard to the veracity of the evidence with reference to the certificate as well as the status and capacity of the person Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:22:46 IST 2017 C/SCA/19553/2006 JUDGMENT who come to be examined by the claimant to be witness in relation to the document and the contents of the said document.
11. It is also relevant to note that when the claimant joined the service of the company, he had submitted an application seeking employment and in the said application, the claimant himself had filled up relevant details which included details with reference to his name, his father's name, his surname and his address as well as date of his birth and his age. With reference to his age, the claimant himself declared that in June, 1952, he was 20 years old. If the said declaration by the claimant is taken into account, then by his own declaration, the claimant would have completed 60 years of age in the year 1992 whereas the learned Tribunal considered the claimant's date of birth as 03/03/1998 and the learned Tribunal has assumed that the claimant attained 60 years of age in 1998.
12. Such conclusion by learned Tribunal runs contrary to the details declared by the claimant in his application for employment.
13. When this Court took note of above mentioned aspects and certain discrepancies in the record which are available before the learned Tribunal, learned advocate for the claimant and learned advocate for the company jointly submitted that neither party can run away from the fact that there are certain discrepancies with regard to the documents which have been considered by learned Tribunal and that therefore, it would be necessary for both the sides to lead adequate and satisfactory as well as cogent evidence in support of their Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:22:46 IST 2017 C/SCA/19553/2006 JUDGMENT respective case. The learned advocates for both sides jointly requested that the proceedings may be remanded to the Tribunal so as to enable the parties to lead evidence.
14. Even otherwise, from the above discussed details, it comes out that there are certain apparent errors in the award passed by the learned Tribunal inasmuch as learned Tribunal has failed to take note of apparent discrepancies in the certificate placed on record by the claimant and other material placed on record by the contesting parties. In view of said joint request by by the sides, it is not necessary to further deliberate the issue and to record any final conclusion with regard to the aspect involved in this case.
15. For all these reasons, the joint request by learned advocates for both sides deserve to be accepted and the proceedings deserves to be remitted to the learned Tribunal.
16. Having regard to the above discussion and joint request of learned advocates for the claimant and the company, following order is passed:
"The impugned award dated 28/03/2006 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.377 of 1992 is set aside. The Reference (IT) No.377 of 1992 is remitted to learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. As long time has passed since the dispute arise, the learned Tribunal shall decide the Reference Case as expeditiously as possible preferably by 31/12/2017."
17. With the above observation, present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:22:46 IST 2017 C/SCA/19553/2006 JUDGMENT (K.M.THAKER, J.) ila Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:22:46 IST 2017