MP High Court Quashes Labour Court Order Allowing PWD Employee To Continue Service Post Retirement
Image by: Shubha Patidar
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (October 7) set aside an order of the Labour court allowing a Public Works Department employee to continue service after his retirement.
The court observed that the employee's claim of an alternate date of birth post-retirement could not be permitted as the employee had, with open eyes, signed various service documents which contained the disputed date of birth.
The employee was appointed a Gangman on March 1, 1978, and his birthdate was recorded as October 1, 1954. However, per his school records, his date of birth was mentioned as June 3, 1959.
On August 30, 2016, the PWD, per their records, passed a retirement order for October 30. The employee, therefore, filed before the Labour Court praying for the grant of ₹1,19,200/- for his services and that he be continued in service.
The PWD, however, objected to the petition, claiming that per Column-1 of Rule 84-85 of the M. P. Financial Code, once the date of birth in the service book has been mentioned, the same could not be changed unless there is a typographical error.
The Labour Court allowed the employee to continue his service after retirement. The PWD, therefore, filed an appeal before the High Court contending that the Labour Court passed the impugned order without considering Rule 84-85 of the Financial Code.
The bench of Justice Alok Awasthi observed,
"The respondent with open eyes signed various service documents which contains his date of birth as 01.10.1954. After retirement, the respondent cannot be permitted to turn around and claim a different date of retirement. The documents submitted by the petitioner are obtained in order to claim a different date of birth as an after thought", the court observed.
In view of the above, the bench directed;
"The impugned order passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner to continue the respondent in service as per his date of birth, is not found in accordance with law. Accordingly, having allowed this miscellaneous petition, the impugned order passed by the Court is set aside".
The court set aside the impugned order and allowed PWD's petition.
Case Title: Public Works Department v Panna [MP-480-2019]
For Petitioner: Government Advocate Mukesh Parwal