THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3393 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in I.D. No. 142 of 2001 dated 9.6.2004 on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the management and respondent No.1 is the workman. It appears, respondent No.1 joined the service of the petitioner-management in the year 1985 as a Sweet Maker. At the time of appointment, his age was shown as 45 years. He left the service on 31.12.1994 and again joined in the service of the petitioner firm on 1.10.1995 and at the time of reappointment he declared his age as 55 years. As he attained the age of 58 years, petitioner firm issued retirement letter on 15.2.2001 asking him to retire with effect from 1.3.2001. However, the case of respondent No.1 is that his date of birth is 1.7.1945 and the same is recorded in his E.S.I. card as per his declaration, but the management wrongly recorded his year of birth as 1945 and, therefore, asking him to retire prematurely is arbitrary and illegal. Thus contending, respondent No.1 raised dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Tribunal seeking to hold that the action of management in issuing retirement letter dated 15.2.2001 asking him to retire w.e.f. 1.3.2001 is arbitrary and illegal and, consequently, to direct the management to reinstate 1st respondent into service with full backwages, continuity of service and other benefits. The management filed detailed counter stating that the workman joined in its firm in the month of January 1985 and at the time of joining, he declared his age as 45 years. He left the service on 31.12.1994 and withdrawn all the benefits including E.P.F. Again he joined afresh in the service of petitioner firm on 1.10.1995 and at this time he declared his age as 55 years. As respondent No.1 attained the age of more than 58 years, he was issued with retirement letter dated 15.2.1001. As the petitioner refused to take the said letter, petitioner sent it by post, which was received by him on 17.2.2001. However, he made representation to the management, which was received by it on 22.2.2001. The Management received another representation dated 6.3.2001 from respondent No.1 with all false allegations and immediately replied on 8.3.2001 stating the facts. Therefore, the workman is not entitled for any relief and the I.D. is liable to be dismissed. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, he was examined as WW-1 and got marked Exs.W1 to W3, whereas, on behalf of the management, MW-1 was examined and Exs.M-1 to M-13 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it and the evidence available on record, the Labour Court found that in Ex.W1 ESI card, the year of birth of the workman was shown as 1945. It may be true that in Ex.W2 and other documents, namely, appointment letters his age was shown as 45 years as on January, 1985, but as noticed by the Labour Court, the workman was an illiterate person. He had simply put his signature in Telugu, without any contents. It is also not the case of the management that the workman filled up all the details and signed the same. The only evidence that can be considered without any hesitation was Ex.W-1 E.S.I. card of the workman, showing the date of the petitioner as 1.7.1945. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the workman shall be deemed as 1.7.1945. In fact, at one stage the petitioner was asked to produce the school certificate by the management. It is unfortunate that such a demand was made for production of school certificate by the management knowing it fully well that the workman was an illiterate. Since there was no contra evidence available on record except the appointment letter, which was not filled up by the petitioner to show that the year of birth of the workman was 1940, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in setting aside the order dated 9.6.2004, which was impugned in the I.D. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 14-6-2010. MVB.