A^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ Writ Petit.i.oii No. 3362 of 2005 ^ ^ Smt. Begam Bai D/o Shri Dewan Sai, aged about 44 years, R/o village & Post Kewchi, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of C.G. through its Dy. Labour Commissioner office ofLabour Commissioner Raipur (CG). 2. The Labour Officer/Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Conciliation officer under the I.D. Act) Office of Labour office, Bilaspur (CG). 3. The Sub Divisional Officer^ Public Works Department, Suh Division Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WD1A) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Sliri P.S. Koshy with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocates for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ORAL ORDER on 1.9th day o.fFebrua^, 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the legality and validity oforder dated 06.06.2005 (Annexure P/l)^ whereby, on failure of conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947'), the respondent No. 1 i.e. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur, has refused to refer the matter to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for proper adjudication. 3. The brief facts, in nutshell are that, the petitioner was appointed as permanent Gang Labour in Public Works Department on 08.07.1983. According to the petitioner, her date ofbirth is 20.04.1961 but the same has been recorded as 1943 in her service book. The petitioner has been retired from service on 26.05.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. After receiving the 3 < retirement order, the petitioner moved an application before the concemed authority for conciliation proceeding for correcting her date of birth and also for reinstatement in service. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent to Chief Medical Officer for determination of her date of birth on 26.05.2004. The District Hospital, Bilaspur, issued the certificate regarding age ofthe petitioner as between 40 to 44 years (Approx) as on 29.06.2004, but the respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order holding that the date of birth of the petitioner, recorded in her service book would be proper because the same has been certified by the petitioner by her thumb impression. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order dated 06.06.2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 1, be quashed and the dispute be referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records., it appears that the grievances of the petitioner cannot be examined without proper adjudication of the matter. Since this petition involves disputed question of facts, therefore, it was desirable to refer the dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in .the matter of Sharad Kumar Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and others 5 while taking into consideration that determination of the question requires examination of factual matters for which materials including oral evidence will have to be considered, directed the Respondent No.l, therein^ to refer the dispute raised by the appellant mcluding the question whether the appellant is a workman under the Act^ to the industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication. ' 2002 (4) SCC 490 ,^<~^ r t^ji^;;,^ 1 l. "-^^ ! ^~.-•3^y y j 7. Sahu For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed and the respondent No. 1 and 2 are directed to refer the matter to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute raised therem, as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge