Supreme Court of India
Managing Director, Orissa Textile ... vs Mandardhar Naik on 23 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)IILLJ748SC, 1995SUPP(3)SCC442, AIRONLINE 1995 SC 768, AIRONLINE 1995 SC 51, 1995 SCC (L&S) 1291, (1996) 2 LAB LJ 748, 1996 LAB LR 215
Author: S.C. Agrawal
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, Sujata V. Manohar
ORDER S.C. Agrawal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Notice was issued indicating that the matter may be finally disposed of at the notice stage itself. The respondent has, however, failed to appear even though duly served. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants.
3. The question arising for consideration in this appeal relates to the date of birth of the respondent for the purpose of his superannuation. In the Adult Workers' Register (hereinafter referred to as "the Register") maintained by the appellants, the age of the respondent on March 23, 1960, the date of appointment, is stated as 24 years and on that basis his date of birth was treated as March 23, 1936 and he has been retired with effect from April 1, 1994. The case of the respondent is that his year of birth is 1940 and he has placed reliance on the identity card issued by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI) wherein his year of birth is shown as 1940. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated July 20, 1994. The learned Judges of the High Court, while observing that the Register is maintained in accordance with the Standing Orders, did not attach importance to the entry in the said Register on the ground that there was no material before them to indicate as to how that entry was recorded in the Register. The High Court has, therefore, directed that the date of birth as recorded in the ESI card must prevail and the respondent would continue in service on the basis of the entry recorded in the ESI card or till he attains superannuation or till the appellants redetermined the age on the basis of the enquiry to be held by it. On that basis, the High Court has quashed the impugned order of superannuation.
4. Since the Register is maintained in accordance with the Standing Orders an entry in the said Register has to be treated as binding until it is shown to be incorrect on the basis of any other relevant material. The ESI card may be one such circumstance but that, by itself, cannot be conclusive and it may necessitate an enquiry into the circumstances of the entry in the Register.
5. While agreeing with the directions given by the High Court that the date of birth of the respondent may be redetermined by the appellants on the basis of an enquiry to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, we cannot uphold the direction given by the High Court that till such enquiry is made the entry in the ESI card must prevail. The said direction of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The appellants are directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to redetermination of the age of the respondent as entered in the Register and in the said enquiry the respondent should be given an opportunity to produce the relevant evidence which he has in his possession to show that the date of birth as recorded in the Register is not correct and that the date of birth as recorded in the ESI card is correct. Such enquiry should be completed within a period of three months. If on the basis of such enquiry the date of birth of the respondent is revised in his favour, the respondent would be entitled to corresponding revision in the date of his superannuation as well as payment of wages for the period he was not in employment as a result of his being superannuated with effect from April 1, 1994. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.