No. 2157 of 2002, by Hon’ble Justice Shri S.K.W"Agnihotri, between ‘i x‘ i i K \ \\ Bimian BEN) éa’i‘ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal N0. @Mé Of 2008. y“ APPELLANTS :- 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, RESPONDENTS A Company incorporated under the Companies Act & Subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its Registered Office at Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Through it’s Chairman Cum Managing Director, 2. Deputy General Manager, Manikpur Colliery, South Eastem Coalfields 1 Limited, Tahsil and District Korba (Chhattisgarh). ' VERSUS RESPONDENT :- Mithilesh Sharma, son of Shri R.N. PETITIONER Shanna, aged about 58 years, presently posted as Mine Time Keeper in Clerical Grade in the Manikpur Colliery, Korba ' ”Area, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Manikpur Colliery, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). WRIT APPEAL u/s' 2 5t HF/fL (Mt Cvc, Act Sg nwé w Wm, Me I§g (lagih ca, Hay, our» R . Being aggrieved with order dated 18.08.2008, passed in W.P. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE I. M. QUDDUSJ K HON’BLE P Km Ml RA J Writ Appeal No. 246 of 2008 South Eastem Coal Fields Ltd., & am‘. Vs. Mithilwh Shanna [ Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Sr Advocate wit Mrs. Mee Jaiswa cnse for the appcllants. Mr. Hmshvanihan, counsel for the espondent r Per LM. qgnnum, J 1. This writ appeal has been Eled aga'nst me impugnui order dated 18.8.2008 passed by the learned Shgle Judge in W.P.(S) No.2157l2002 allowing the writ peu'iion and quashing the oxder dated 05.09.2002 1etiriug the reslmndent hum services on attaining the age of 60 years heating his date of birth as 02.10.1942 with e&ct mm 31.10.2002. He was appointed at the age of 16 years and 9 months under the Mines Act, 1952. — 2. The bn'ef facts of the case axe that the respondent was appointed as casual/general Majdoor in Korba colliery on 02.10.1960. At that u'me, his date of birth was disrlosed as 10.01.1944. In the xevised mooxds pertaining to Coal Mme Provident Fund, his date of birth was entered as 10.01.1944. Angliants: Resgndent : WRIT APPEAL UIS 2‘1] OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT QWAL TO DIVISION :BEHCHI AQL 2006 READ MT}! RULE 156‘ 101 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES Angearance: . h m l, oul 2 y.A_N_9.2ggoog In Fonn-B Iegistcr, the same datc of birth was also menu'oned. He was to reu‘m at the age of 60 yeaxs under the Ccrtmed Standing Onicxs applicable for non-execun've employees framed in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Needless to menh'on that the petimnorlmspondent herein was promoted to the post ofi‘imekeeper on 12x11. 1994. The reh'mment of the respondent was made on the gound that he could not have got appointment under the age of 18 years and thus his date of birth was changed hum 1944 to 1942 showing the same as 02. 10. 1942 suwnwtu by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has shown a medical eerh‘hcate hled as Annexme R-8 to the return £1ed on behalf of the instant appellants in the writ petition whivhis dated 30th August; 1968, in whirh, his age by appearance has been shown as 25 years and themfore hem the own documents of the writ appellants, the date of birth— mentioned as lO‘h January 1944 cannot be disputed. With Iegald to the contenh'on raised by leaned counselfor the writ appellants that the Iespondent could not have got \ appointment below the age of 18 yeais, it has to be noticed that at the time ‘when the respondent got appointment, his age was about 16 years and 9 [months At the h'me of engagement of the tespondent, section 45 of the Mines Act, as it was in force, reads as under: 45 Employment of Children (1) No child shall be employed in any mine nor shall any child be allowed to be present 1n any part of a mine which is 3 W008 @ below ground or in any open éxcavation m which any mining opexaiion is being canied on. (2) Atter such date as the Centml Government may, by nomaiion in the O$cial Gazette, appointrin this behalf, no child shall be allowed to be present in -,any part of a mine above gmund Where any opemtion connected with or incidental to any mining opexau'on is being carried on.” The word “Child” hae been demd in section 2(e) ofthe Mines Act, which reads as under: 2(e) “Chilri” means a pexson who has not completed his Eteenth year; In view of the above, it is clear that at the time of engagement, a pemon who has completed 15 years of age was no mom a ehi‘ld. v Accouiing to sech‘on 45, there was mst‘iction on engagng a child, themfoxe, a person, who is above the age of 15 yeam, meaning thexeby who lemained no mom a child, could be engaged as there was no restliction on such engagement. Therefore, there was nothing unusual in the engagement of the mspondent at the m of 16 years 8t. 9 months. For the masons mentioned above, we do not nnd any good \ ground to interfere in the impugied order passed by die kamed Single ‘Ju‘dge. The writ appeal is misconceiyed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost(s). I.M.adfidusi ll J: Sdl— ‘ Judge msmtKumarMlshm . > i