Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.106 of 2001 Garhwal Jal Sansthan, Through its Executive Engineer ‘Anurakshak Khand’ Dehradun and another. ………. Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and another. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri M.C.Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award dated 31.08.2000 passed by the respondent No.1/Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.334 of 1999 contained in annexure No.5 to the writ petition. 2. On a dispute raised by the workman, the U.P. Government vide notification dated 04.10.1999 referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. 3. Before the Labour Court the workman pleaded that he was posted on the permanent post of Sewer Mechanic with the employer in the office of respondent No.2. He was due to retire from service on 31.12.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years according to date of birth 2 15.12.1940 as entered in his service-book but the petitioners passed orders for retirement on 30.04.1998 which is illegal. 4. The petitioners’ pleaded that in the service record the workman’s date of birth was recorded as 15.12.1936 in the service-book. The workman himself has adduced certificate issued on 22.05.1955 by Kishorilal Ganghi Memorial Inter College, Nakur, Saharanpur in which the date of birth of workman is recorded 15.12.1936 and according to this date of birth he had attained the age of 60 years on 14.12.1996 but prior to this with the collusion of some employee he has manipulated the date of birth as 15.12.1940 continued in service after December 1996. As and when it came to the notice of employers/petitioners, the order has been passed on 30.04.1998 retiring the workman from service. The employers as well as the workman adduced their evidence, oral as well as documentary, in the case before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the impugned order retiring the workman from service is wrong and allowed him salary and all retiral benefit treating him in service upto 31.12.2000. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Labour Court has recorded finding that according to alleged date of birth of the workman i.e. 15.12.1936 he has to superannuate from service after completing the age of 60 years on 31.12.1996 but he was not given retirement and he continued in service. Thereafter after more than one year on 30.04.1998 order has been passed retiring him from service without giving 3 him any opportunity of haring. It has also come in evidence that the workman has sent an application for correction of his date of birth in the service-book but the employers neither took any decision on his application nor made any inquiry at the time of passing of impugned order. I find that the Labour Court has rightly accepted the version of the respondent No.2/workman and accepted the date of birth of the workman which was written in the service record. The Labour Court has recorded finding of fact which calls for no interference by this Court. The writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.08.2008 P.Singh