IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33929 of 2008(L)
1. K.M.PAULOSE, AGED 55, S/O.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR.
3. THE ALAGAPPA TEXTILES, REP. BY ITS
4. THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :26/11/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.33929 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 26th November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, who is an employee of the 3rd respondent
which is now stated to have been taken over by the 4th
respondent, is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the
Management to accept the request made for correction of
his date of birth. He submits that the date of birth given
by him in official records is 8.12.1950 Whereas the
actual date of birth is 20.5.1953. He has therefore sought
for correction of his date of birth in service records.
Exhibit P3 representation submitted by him in this regard
has not been responded to.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th
respondent submits that there is an industrial dispute
currently pending before the competent Labour Court at
the instance of the Union representing the interests of the
workmen of the 3rd respondent company and one of the
issues pending adjudication in that behalf relates to
W.P ( C) No.33929 of 2008
2
correction of date of birth of six employees.
3. Sri.Krishna Menon, learned counsel appearing
for the 4th respondent placed before me a copy of G.O (Rt)
No.2601/2008/LBR Dated 6/10/2008 in which one of the
issues referred is as follows:
“Whether the demand of the trade unions
to allow applications from all the six workers for
correction of date of birth, worthy of
consideration based on the facts and
circumstances of each case. “
4. Mr. Sreekumar also submits that petitioner is
one of the six workers who is comprehended by the
industrial dispute.
5. If that be so, it would not be appropriate that
this Court to issue a separate direction to the management
to consider the petitioner’s application for correction of his
date of birth. Issue is pending adjudication before the
Industrial Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out
that he is due to retire on 8.12.2008, going by the date of
birth as it is currently entered in the service records and he
will be prejudiced by the delay which invariably would
W.P ( C) No.33929 of 2008
3
occur in the final adjudication of the Industrial Dispute.
Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that it will
be open to the petitioner to move an application for interim
relief before the Industrial Tribunal and that in such
circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to pass orders on
such interlocutory applications.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the
Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad with an appropriate
application in I.D 64 of 2008 which is pending adjudication
before the said Tribunal.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.33929 of 2008
4
W.P ( C) No.33929 of 2008
5