IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.

708 of 2013 (M/S)

Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Bazpur ..Petitioner Versus Shri Ram Bharosai Lal ..Respondent

Present: Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.C. Dumka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the respondent.

Honble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Workman was served with notice dated

28.9.1998 that workman would be retiring on 31.10.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Ultimately, workman stood retired on 31.10.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. On the application of the workman dated 12.1.2005, case was initiated on the question what was the correct date of birth of the workman. Learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 16.2.2013, directed the employer to correct the date of birth of the workman in official record as 13.12.1939 instead of 13.10.1938. Feeling aggrieved, employer/petitioner, herein, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.C. Dumka, Advocate for the petitioner the record. Undisputedly, workman was served with an information dated 28.9.1998 that workman would be retiring on 31.10.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Undisputedly, workman did not move any application/representation between and Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and have carefully perused

2 28.9.1998, the advance retirement notice, and date of retirement i.e. 31.10.1998 for correction of date of birth. According to Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman, initially reference was made to the Labour Court on the application of the workman, however, after withdrawing the same, workman moved another application dated 12.1.2005, whereupon impugned order was passed. Therefore, workman cannot be held guilty for alleged delay in moving the application for correction of date of birth in the official record. Be as the case may be, fact remains, as discussed hereinbefore, that no application was made between 28.9.1998 i.e. the date of advance retirement notice and date of retirement i.e. 31.10.1998, and any dispute raised by the workman after the date of retirement can be termed as afterthought. Therefore, order impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 16.2.2013 is hereby quashed.

(Alok Singh, J.) 9.4.2014

Avneet