P.R. Bora JUDGMENT
P.R. Bora, J.
1. The present Petition is directed against the Judgment of the Labour Court, Pune in complaint, U.L.P. No. 165 of 2000 decided on 29th August, 2001 and the Judgment delivered by Industrial Court, Pune in Revision (U.L.P.) No. 79 of 2001 on 16th January, 2002 whereby it has confirmed the aforesaid judgment of the Labour Court.
2. The present Respondent No. 1 entered into the services of the Petitioner-Sugar Factory in the year 1962 as a Slip-boy. During the course of his services he got the promotion and when he retired from the services he was working as Mukadam. At the time of entering into the services of the Sugar factory, Respondent No. 1 has noted his date of birth as 1st June, 1940. According to the said date of birth, Respondent No. 1 was to retire from the services of the Petitioner-Sugar factory on 31st May, 2000 after attaining the age of superannuation.
3. As per the standing orders applicable to the Petitioner-Sugar Factory, age of superannuation is 60 years. Accordingly, a notice was issued to Respondent No. 1 by the Petitioner-Sugar factory on 7th April, 2000 informing Respondent No. 1 that he will stand retire after officer hours on 31st May, 2000 since he will be completing the 60 years of his age on 1st June, 2000. After receiving the said letter, Respondent No. 1, on 5th May, 2000 submitted an application to the Petitioner-Sugar factory containing therein that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service record as 1st June, 1940, whereas his correct date of birth was 31st October, 1943. The application so made by Respondent No. 1 was rejected by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 therefore, filed complaint ULP No. 165 of 2000 before the Labour Court at Pune seeking a declaration that the office order issued by the Petitioner on 7th April, 2000, thereby retiring Respondent No. 1 from the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31st May, 2000 (A.O.H.) was illegal. Respondent No. 1 has also sought directions against the Petitioner-Sugar factory to reinstate him and to allow him to work till 31st October, 2003.
4. The contentions raised in the complaint were resisted by the Petitioner by filing its written statement before the Labour court. Labour Court on its assessment of the evidence brought before it allowed the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 and thereby directed the Petitioner to allow the complainant i.e. Respondent No. 1 to work on the post from which he was retired, till 1st November, 2003 with continuity of service.
5. The order passed by the Labour Court was questioned by the Petitioner before the Industrial Court at Pune by filing Revision application No. 79 of 2001. The learned Industrial Court however, did not cause interference in the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Revision Application. Aggrieved by, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition. On 12th June, 2002 this Court granted the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) and thereby, stayed the implementation of the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Pune, in ULP No. 165 of 2000 pending hearing and final disposal of the present Petition. While granting the ad-interim relief as above, it was clarified by this Court that it was open for Respondent No. 1 to apply to the Petitioner for payment of his retirement dues, without prejudice to his rights and contentions and the Petitioner was directed to pay the retirement benefits to which Respondent No. 1 was entitled.
6. Shri K.S. Bapat the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the orders passed by the Courts below on various grounds. The learned counsel taking me through the evidence on record and more particularly, the documents existing on record submitted that both the courts below have completely ignored the documentary evidence on record and have relied upon a letter dated 4th July, 1981, genuineness of which ........