Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.257 of 2002 Itwari S/o Sri Nanda ………. Petitioner Versus The Deputy Labour Commissioner Garhwal Region, Dehradun and another. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri S.S.Negi and Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.12.2001 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, by which he refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. 2. The petitioner raised a dispute after the retirement from service that his date of birth has wrongly been entered in the service record on the basis of which he has been superannuated from service after completing the age of 60 years. The Deputy Labour Commissioner registered the case of the petitioner as C.P. Case No.45 of 2001 and issued notice to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed objection stating therein that the services of the petitioner were not terminated. The petitioner was appointed in the institution on 01.12.1979 and the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded 2 in the service record on the basis of Pariwar register produced by him. In the said document the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded 06.10.1938. On attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service on 05.10.1998. The petitioner never submitted any objection in respect of his date of birth during the entire service period. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the entire service record the date of birth of petitioner has been recorded 06.10.1938. The petitioner never raised any objection during the entire service period. At the time of filing pension papers the petitioner himself entered his date 06.10.1938. 4. The record clearly shows that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated. After completing the age of 60 years he was retired from service. He is receiving the pension. Thereafter the petitioner made an application under Section 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Deputy Labour Commissioner did not commit any mistake in observing that the dispute between the parties does not come within the definition of industrial dispute and rightly refused to refer the matter for adjudication. 5. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh