Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :

"M/s. Mahavir Sugar Mills, Siswa Bazar, District Gorakhpur (now district Maharajganj) (hereinafter referred to as "the Mill") which manufactures crystal sugar by vacuum pan process, was acquired on 28th October, 1984 by the State of U. P. under the provisions of the U. P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, as amended by the U. P. Act No. XX of 1985. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was appointed, in the year 1943, as a Machineman in the Mill. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Mate. The date of birth of the respondent No. 1 as recorded in the service book is "year 1929". When the respondent No. 1 became eligible under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, he filled his declaration in which also the date of birth has been noted as "year 1929". On the basis of Paragraph LL of the standing orders applicable to the workmen in the Vacuum Sugar Pan Factories in Uttar Pradesh, which provides that where the provident fund record of the workman does not specify the date or month of birth, in that case the first November of the year shall be deemed to be the date of retirement, a notice was issued on 31st August, 1989 to the respondent No. 1 that he will be completing the age of 60 years on 31st October, 1989 and that he will be retiring on 1st November, 1989, On receipt of the retirement notice dated 31st August, 1989, the respondent No. 1 gave an application on 8th September, 1989 to the Labour Commissioner, U. P., Kanpur, which was subsequently transferred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur. In the application, it was stated that the notice dated 31st August, 1989 seeking to retire him on 31st October, 1989, is illegal and that his date of birth as recorded in the Parivar Register of the Gaon Sabha is 1935 and therefore, his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the record of the petitioner as 1929. The petitioner contested the claim made by the respondent No: 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had himself at the time of his appointment as also at the time of filling the declaration .form for joining the Employees Provident Fund Scheme has mentioned his date of birth as "year 1929" and he did not make any complaint or application for correction of his date of birth prior to issuance of retirement notice dated 31st August, 1989 and, therefore, the same cannot be corrected. The petitioner further raised a doubt about the correctness of the extract of the Parivar register filed by the respondent No. 1 as the respondent No. 1 had filed a photostat copy of the extract from the Parivar register. The respondent No. 1 examined himself. He did not admit that in the police record, his date of birth has been recorded as the year 1929. He has been working in the Mill for the last 30-35 years and prior to his employment in the Mill he had worked at the residence of Sri Bose (General Manager) for 10-12 years. He had further admitted that he started his services when he was a minor aged about 10-12 years and he did not make any complaint about his age having been wrongly recorded in the Mill's record. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, by the impugned order, had accepted the entries made in the Parivar register and had accordingly directed the petitioner to correct the date of birth as 1935 in the records and to give him the benefit of service and wages."

3. I have heard Sri R. D. Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shyam Narain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 at the time of entering into service in the year 1943, had mentioned the date of birth as the year 1929. Thus, he was at that time about 14 years of age. If his date of birth, as claimed to be the year 1935, is taken to be correct, then he would be only 8 years at the time of joining of service as Machineman, which is highly improbable. Further, according to the own admission of respondent No. 1, he had worked for about 30-35 years in the Mill and prior to it about 10-12 years at the residence of Sri Bose, which means that at the time when he started working at the residence of Sri Bose, he was only about 2 years of age, which by any stretch of imagination cannot be believed. He further submitted that the Parivar register filed by the respondent No. 1 was inadmissible in evidence as he had only filed a Photostat copy and not the original Parivar register. Further, there has been overwriting on the figure "5" in the year "1935" noted against the respondent No. 1. This is also false as Hanif son of Salamat Mia was shown to be born in the year 1948. If it is taken to be correct, then the fact would be that the respondent No. 1 became a father at the age of 13 years, which is impossible. According to Sri Khare, it is not clear as to when the copy of the Parivar register was issued, who issued it and from which register the same was copied and no such endorsement that the extract has been correctly copied from the Parivar register has been made and, therefore, it is not worthy of reliance. The petitioner had examined Sri Vinod Biharl Srivastava, Upper Division Clerk in the Provident Fund Office of the Mill who brought the original provident fund declaration form and proved that on 22nd March, 1958, the age of respondent No. 1 was recorded as 1929, which was also signed by him. Two other witnesses, Sri Ram Narain, chief time keeper and Sri Achyutanand Misra, clerk, dealing the provident fund, were also examined, who corroborated the statement of the petitioner. Thus, he submitted that the respondent No. 2 has committed a manifest error of law in directing the age of the respondent No. 1 to be corrected as "1935" in place of "1929".

No costs."

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 entered into service in the year 1947 as would be seen from the service book filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and not in 1943 as claimed by the petitioner. His date of birth as mentioned In the service record at the time of entry as also in the provident fund is "year 1929". After the notice of retirement was Issued on 31st August, 1989 seeking to retire the respondent No. 1 on 1st November, 1989, he made an application for correction of his date of birth. In his own statement, he has stated that it Is wrong to say that In the police record his date of birth has been mentioned as "year 1929" and, therefore, he has not filed the same. However, In the Parivar register extract, his year of birth has been mentioned as 1935 and he has filed a photostat copy. According to him, he had worked for about 30-35 years in the Mill and prior to It he had worked for 10-12 years at the residence of Mr. Bose and he does not remember that he has started working In the Mill from 1947. Photostat copy of the extract of the Parivar register filed by the respondent No. 1 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which has not been disputed. Before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the petitioner did not raise any such plea that In the column of the year of birth mentioned against the respondent No. 1 there is an overwriting In the figure "5" or the year of birth of his son Hanif has been mentioned as 1948, i.e., his son was born when the respondent No. 1 was only 13 years of age. The original Parivar register had not been summoned by the Deputy Labour Commissioner inspite of the request made by the respondent No. 1 in his statement. Viewed in this background, if the Deputy Labour Commissioner has accepted the entries made in the Parivar register and had directed for correction of the date of birth in the Mill's record, it cannot be said that he has acted arbitrarily or has committed any illegality. So far as the submission that the entries in the Parivar register could not have been made the basis for correction is concerned, it may be mentioned that Clause LL of the Standing Order provides for retirement of workman on reaching the age of superannuation. It reads as follows :

(4) If none of the documents mentioned in Sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) are available, then it is permissible for the workman concerned to produce any evidence of his age and in that event it will be for the Labour Commissioner to decide whether the evidence is relevant, whether it relates to the workman concerned and what is its probative value and whether It is sufficient to rebut the initial presumption in favour of the entry in the Provident Fund Records."

10. The aforesaid decision has been followed by this Court in the case of U. P. State Sugar Corporation, Unit Ramkola (supra). Thus, the entries made in the Parivar register can be taken into consideration for correction of the date of birth. 11. In the case of U. P. State Sugar Corporation, Unit Siswa Bazar, Maharajganj (supra), this Court has held that the standing order came into force on 27th September, 1988 and correction could have been made within a year. In the present case, the date of the application has been mentioned as 8th September, 1989 and, therefore, it is within one year and was maintainable. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary and Commission, Home Department (supra) and this Court in the case of M/s. Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as under Sub-clause (iv) of Para LL of the standing order, the application could have been made within one year from the date of enforcement of the standing orders.