IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.23487 of 2008 Between: 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada Depot 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 M. Rama Yogi S/o. Seshaiah R/o. D.No. 3-2-51/B, Ramarau Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.111 of 2002, dt.27-9-2007 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court, Guntur and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.23487 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the award dated 27.09.2007 passed in I.D.No.111 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court, Guntur. It appears, the 1st respondent-workman, who was working as Cleaner in the respondent Corporation, was made to retire from the service of the Corporation with eﬀect from 31.12.2000, by the order of the 1st petitioner, treating his date of birth as 29.07.1942, on the ground that the Medical Oﬃcer has determined his age as 22 years on 29.07.1964. According to the 1st respondent-workman, his date of birth is 01.06.1944 and the school certiﬁcate produced by him also proves the same and, in fact, the same was entered in his service record and, therefore, as per the said date of birth, his date of retirement would be 31.05.2002, but the management has illegally retired him with eﬀect from 31.12.2000, two years prior to the actual date of retirement. He, therefore, raised a dispute in I.D.No.111 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Guntur, seeking to set aside the order passed by the management retiring him from service with effect from 31.12.2000. The claim of the 1s t respondent-workman was resisted by the management by filing a counter. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and another witness as W.W.2, and marked Exs.W1 to W10. On behalf of the management, M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M1 to M10 were marked. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that on the basis of the school certiﬁcate produced by the workman, his date of birth was entered in the service register even in the year 1965 as 01.06.1944 and, therefore, retiring him from service with eﬀect from 31.12.2000 on the ground that the Medical Oﬃcer determined his age as 22 years on 29.07.1964, is not proper. The Labour Court accordingly passed the impugned award, setting aside the order passed by the management retiring the workman with eﬀect from 31.12.2000, and since the workman has already reached the age of superannuation by 31.05.2002, the management was directed to treat that the workman was in service till 31.05.2002 and to pay the arrears, retirement beneﬁts etc. treating his the date of superannuation as 31.05.2002. Questioning the same, the management has preferred the present writ petition. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned award. Admittedly, the date of birth of the 1st respondent-workman was entered in his service register as 01.06.1944 even in the year 1965 and the management also did not dispute the same. The only ground for the management to justify its action in retiring the workman with eﬀect from 31.12.2000 is that, on 29.07.1964, the Medical Oﬃcer examined the workman and determined his age as 22 years on that date and therefore his date of birth should have been 29.07.1942, as per which he should be retired with eﬀect from 31.12.2000. This ground merits no acceptance. When the date of birth of the workman was entered in the service register after verifying the school certiﬁcate produced by him, though subsequent to the appointment as contended by the management, and when the same was not altered, the action of the management in retiring him before his attaining the age of superanuation as per the said date of birth, basing on the date of birth ﬁxed by the management as per the age determined by the Medical Oﬃcer at the time of his appointment, amounts to illegal termination of his services. The Medical Oﬃcer might have assessed the age of the workman as 22 years on 29.07.1964, while examining his ﬁtness at the time of appointment, but the management cannot take the same as the basis for ﬁxing his date of birth, when the school certiﬁcate produced by the workman in proof of his date of birth is available and his date of birth was also entered in the service register basing on the said certiﬁcate. The Labour Court has considered the matter in right perspective and passed the impugned award, which does not warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________​__________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 30th October, 2008. IBL