NMW536-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.536 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 2008 Board of Trustees of Mumbai Port Trusts .. Petitioners Versus Tukaram Katkar & Anr .. Respondents Mr.R.S.Pai a/w Mr.S.K.Chari i/by M.V.Kini & Co for the petitioners. Ms.S.Gopal for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 2nd February 2011 P.C. Heard both sides. This notice of motion is seeking an interim relief in the pending writ petition. The motion is moved by the 1st respondent who seeks direction to the petitioner Bombay Port Trust to pay to him the last drawn wages on the basis that he has been illegally terminated and section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is attracted. 2 I have perused the notice of motion and the annexures thereto NMW536-10 2 so also all affidavits on record. I have also heard Ms.Gopal appearing on behalf of 1st respondent-workman in support and Mr.Pai appearing on behalf of petitioner in opposition. 3 An award that is passed by the Presiding Officer of CGIT, Court No.2 dated 9th August 2007 and impugned in the writ petition is on a reference made by the appropriate government to decide : (a) “Whether the industrial dispute raised by the Secretary, Bombay Port Trust Employees Union against the management of the Bombay Port Trust over the demand for correction of date of birth of Tukaram R. Katkar (1st respondent herein) is decided?” (b) “If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 4 Though operative order as made by the learned Presiding Officer is that the correct date of birth of the 1st respondent is not 17th February 1942 but 17th February 1952, the age of superannuation on the basis of the correction in the date of birth, would then have to be computed and the consequential benefits in terms of the operative award must be extended to him. The operative order directs the petitioner to treat NMW536-10 3 the 1st respondent as its employee till he attains the age of superannuation in 2012 on the basis of the corrected date of birth. 5 Assuming that the 1st respondent seeks to derive any benefit of this award by terming the act of the petitioner superannuating him prior to 2012 as a premature dismissal or termination, going by the original date of birth recorded in the service book, and looked at in the backdrop of the terms of reference, I do not see how section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be applied to the peculiar facts of this case. Here, the dispute is about the date of birth. If the date of birth recorded in the service book is taken as correct, then, the respondent has superannuated and will derive all benefits as are permissible and payable to him in terms of the rules and regulations of the petitioner. If the respondent states that he is supposed to continue in terms of the award and if the petition ultimately fails, appropriate directions can be given to extend the benefits on the basis that the petitioner has continued the 1st respondent notionally and the award as confirmed by this Court should be implemented. I do not see any reason to grant any benefit in terms of the award to the 1st respondent at this stage. The notice of motion is, therefore, misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)