JUDGMENT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. List has been revised. Counsel for the respondents is not present. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned award dated 19.1.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Labour Court (IV), UP. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 15 of 1999.
2. Respondent No. 1 workman was appointed on the post of driver in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways in the year 1967. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was created in 1972. Thereafter all the employees of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways were sent on deputation to the Corporation.
3. It is alleged that the respondent workman was also sent on deputation on 3.5.1972 and thereafter he was absorbed in the services of the Corporation in the year 1982. Regulation 37 of the Service Regulations framed by the Corporation provides the age of retirement of Group-C employees at the age of 58 years. The respondent workman retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.96.
4. Aggrieved by his retirement the workman raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer that he has been given premature retirement and is entitled to continue in service till he attains 60 years of age. Conciliation proceedings having failed the following matter of dispute was referred to the Labour Court (IV) U.P. Kanpur, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 15 of 1999.
D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius Jfed Jh vtht [kkW iq= Jh equhj [kkW in pkyd dks 60 o”kZ ds iwoZ vkns’k fnukad 31-12-96 }kjk fnukad 31-12-96 ds vijkUg ls lsok fuo`Rr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gS \ ;fn gka rks lacaf/kr Jfed fdl vuqrks”k @ fgrykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj fdl fooj.k lfgr \
5. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of the respective parties the Labour Court held that the respondent workman is a Group D employee, hence he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years and directed that he be treated continue in service till 31.12.98.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman filed an affidavit on 28.1.2004 before authorities of the Corporation that he had been rightly retired on 31.12.96 and his date of birth had also been rightly recorded in his service record.
7. He further submits that the post of driver in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways was a class III (Group C post) and the age of retirement of such employees was 58 years. He states that on creation of the Corporation there was no change in terms and conditions of the services of the employees and they continued to remain the same. It is urged that the pay scale at the time of framing of the Service Regulations would be relevant to determine the Class/Group in which an employee would come; that thus it is only the pay scale of an employee as on 19.6.81 which would determine the said issue, hence the view taken by the Labour Court is absolutely perverse and against the material on record.
8. He also submits that the workman was working in the pay scale of Rs. 230-385, hence he fell in Group-C category and was rightly retired from service at the age of 58 years as per regulation 37. It is urged that the High Court in a catena of judgments has held that the age of retirement of Group-C employees in the Corporation is 58 years.
9. He has placed reliance upon (2003)(1) ESC 175, Bal Kishan Tipathi v. UPSRTC and Anr. in this regard and submits that the workman has himself admitted in the affidavit that his date of birth had been rightly recorded in his service book and he had been rightly retired, hence the impugned award is liable to be set aside. This affidavit has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition along with the supplementary affidavit. It is as under:
‘kiFk i=
lsok esa]
Jheku~ {ks=h; izcU/kd]
m0 iz0 jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe]
>kWalh {ks= >kWalh A
}kjk & mfpr ek/;e
‘kiFki= feutkfuc vtht [ka iq= Jh equhj [kka tkfr eqlyeku ¼iBku½ eqgky feFkakuiqjk jkB rglhy jkB ftyk gehjiqj ¼m0 iz0½ fuEufyf[kr cgtQ c;ku djrk gWwwa%
1- ;g fd vkids v/khuLFk m0iz0 jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe jkB fMiks esa pkyd in ij dk;Zjr Fkk tks fd fnukad 31-12-1996 dks lsok fuo`Rr gks pqdk gwWa tks foHkkxh; fu;ekuqlkj lgh gS A
2- ;g fd esjh lsok iqfLrdk esa tUe frfFk 20-12-1938 vafdr gS og iw.kZr% lR; gS blh vafdr tUe frfFk ls gh m0iz0 jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe esa esjh fu;qfDr fnukad 1-8-1967 dks pkyd in ij gqbZ Fkh A tks lsok iqfLrdk esa lgh vafdr gS
3- ;g fd eSus tks tUe frfFk fookn ds lEcU/k esa tks ds’k nk;j fd;k gS og nwljs ds cgdkus esa nk;j fd;k Fkk tks iw.kZr% voS/kkfud gS eq>s vc tUe frfFk esa dksbZ fookn ugh gS tks esjh lsok iqfLrdk esa tUe frfFk vafdr gS og iw.kZr% lgh gS rFkk lsok fuo`Rr Hkh eq>s fu;ekuqlkj fd;k x;k gS bles eq>s vc dksbZ vkifRr ugh gS rFkk tUe frfFk ls lEcfU/kr nk;j fd;k gqvk ds’k eS viuk okil ys jgk gwWa A ftldh lR;izfr vkids voyksdukFkZ izLrqr gS A
4- ;g fd esjk vo’ks”k xzsP;qVh vkfn foHkkxh; fu;ekuqlkj Hkqxrku dj fn;k tk;s eq>s vc fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vkifRr ugh gS eSus xzsP;qVh dk izkFkZuk i= Hkh vkt fnukad 27-1-2004 dks dk;kZy; l0 {ks=h; izcU/kd m0iz0 ifjogu fuxe jkBk fMiksa es ns fn;k gS A
5- ;g fd eSus fdlh Hkh rF; dks fNik;k ugh gS ‘kiFk i= dh /kkjk 1 yxk;r 4 rd lc lp o lgh gS A
fnukad % 28-1-04 ‘kiFkdrkZ
vtht [kka iq= Jh equhj [kka
fu0 eq0 feFkkiqjk jkB rg0 jkB
ftyk gehjiqj A
10. The workman has himself admitted in the affidavit that he has rightly been retired from the service at the age of 58 years.
11. No counter affidavit has been filed inspite of time being granted to the respondents, hence the averments made in the writ petition and the ground taken therein are taken to be corrected in view of the decisions rendered in Choksi Tube Co. Limited v. Union of India and Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. and Ors. and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.