Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court At fag end of carrier, a party cannot be allowed to raise a dispute regarding his date of birth MANU/MH/0390/2017 - (10 Mar 2017) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited. A Cooperative Sugar Factory v. Shri Janu Gajaba Zagade And Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present petition filed against the judgment of Industrial Court, whereby it has confirmed the judgment of Labour Court. The learned counsel submitted that, Courts below have failed in appreciating that, application/representation submitted by Respondent No.1 at fag end of his service and more particularly, after receiving the intimation regarding his retirement was rightly rejected by Petitioner.

When best possible evidence was existing on record, there was no reason for Courts below to discard said evidence and to rely upon government gazette, for determining correct date of birth of Respondent No. 1. View taken by Courts below and reasoning given by them in holding 31st October, 1943, as correct date of birth of Respondent No.1 is wholly unconscionable and cannot be sustained. Further, inference drawn by Courts below that vide letter dated 4th July, 1981 Petitioner-Sugar factory has accepted change in the date of birth of Respondent No.1 is equally unconscionable. .

Respondent No.1 has utterly failed in proving that his correct date of birth is 31st October, 1943. Respondent No.1 has also failed in proving that he had made an application to Petitioner-Sugar factory in year 1962 for correcting his date of birth from 1st June, 1940 to 31st October, 1943. From material on record, it is clear that only after retirement notice was served upon Respondent No.1 that he made an application taking a contention therein that he had already submitted the application in year 1962 for correction in his date of birth. If it was the contention of Respondent No.1 that he had submitted an application in year 1962 for correction in his date of birth , he was under an obligation to see that change as prayed by him is effected and if same was not effected to make a grievance about same within reasonable period. Admittedly, no such material is brought on record by Respondent No.1 to show that he had pursued said application. If as claimed by Respondent No.1 he had submitted an application in 1962, he would surely had made some inquiry whether service record and Provident Fund record was accordingly corrected.

From available evidence, only inference which emerges is that Respondent No.1 for first time seeks change in his date of birth at the fag end of his service and after he was served with retirement notice. As held by Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. S. M. Jadhav and Anr., at fag end of carrier, a party cannot be allowed to raise a dispute regarding his date of birth. Order passed by Labour Court, Pune in complaint and order passed by Industrial Court, thereby confirming order passed by Labour Court was set aside and quashed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Retirement, Date of birth, Dispute</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>