DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad by which the petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. Was allowed and the petitioner was reinstated in service with full back benefits. The facts forming the backgrounds of this appeal in brief are as follows:- The petitioner had been employed by the respondent as a driver on 10-10-1960 and in due course was promoted as an Assistant Yard Master. At the material time, he happened to be the President of the C.BA. According to him he had been taking avid interest in the welfare activities of the workers and the authorities were after his blood. As the petitioner was giving them no excuse to axe him, he was given an order of retirement on 21-1-1989 on the ground of superannuation. However, within a week thereof i.e. On 28-11-1989, the aforesaid order was temporarily withheld, and on 31-11- 1989 a reference was made to the Civil Surgeon of Hyderabad for his physical check up for the determination of his age.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner had been examined by the Civil Surgeon as directed, and according to the certificate issued by him he was only 50 years of age. A copy of the certificate is stated to have been submitted to the respondents notwithstanding the certificate the respondent on 30-8-1990 retired him with immediate effect. Aggrieved by this turn of events the petitioner had served a grievance notice and later filed the petition.
3. In the written statement it was alleged that the petitioner at the time of employment in 1960 had given his age as 34 years and the earlier order of his retirement under the circumstances was not open to any exception. However, he had resorted to agitational activities and created a furore among the workers who had forcibly taken possession of the SRTC Head Office and were demanding the withdrawal of the order. The Head Office remained under their illegal occupation for 2 days beginning from 26th of November, 1989 and it was after a good deal of, persuation that peace was restored but on the condition that there was to be determination of his age arraigned through the medical authorities. The letter was issued to the latter on 30-11-1989, but in spite of a wait of more than six months he had failed to produce the certificate in spite of two reminders. He had produced only a photostat copy of the alleged certificate, according to which he was only 50 years of age. It was also mentioned that according to the application submitted by the petitioner at the time of his joining the service he had produced his driving licence number also. The other allegations came to be denied.
4. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it re-instated the petitioner with full back benefits culminating in this appeal.
5. It is noticeable that the respondent had neither produced the National Identity Card nor even the driving licence though he has been a man from the Transport Service all along. In the course of the cross-examination he had undertaken to produce the licence but later made an application that he had failed to trace out the same in spite of his best efforts. He had also admitted therein that at the time of recruitment he had produced the driving licence. He did not remember the number but was not prepared to deny that it might have been 3087 of 1943.
6. The application he had made at the time of recruitment is on the record. The respondent has denied his signature. According to it he had obtained the licence in 1943 and its number was 3087 KYC. It also mentions that he had an experience of 7 years service, as he put it, with the US Army during the war. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of retirement originally passed on 21-11- 1989 was unjustified.
7. However, the appellant got cold feet and frightened once the workers had taken to the war-path and it was in that panic that the authorities decided to by peace by making a reference to the Civil Surgeon for the determination of his age. There was no question, of any determination of age because the respondent had the record of his service including the particulars of his age. You do not make a reference to a Medical Officer every time that a worker or an employee is due to retire.
Even then what was produced by the respondent was only a photostat copy and not the alleged original certificate issued by the Medical Officer. He has stated in the cross-examination that he had sent the original certificate given to him by the Civil Surgeon alongwith the grievance notice.
However, the grievance notice unequivocally mentions that on 2-4-1990 he had given an application and attached a photostat copy of the certificate with it. There two statements, therefore, cannot stand together. He had put an application on record' and notwithstanding the hesitancy of the appellant's witness, that also mentions that he had given only a photostat copy.
That is on the record as ExhA/4 and nothing turns on that.
8. Admittedly at the relevant time the respondent was the Chairman of the C.BA. But before the retirement order there was no indication of anyunrest among the workers. On his own admission he had no enmity or dispute with any officer of the S.R.T.C. With this candid admission, there is no reason as to why the appellants should have brought him to harm out of any malice. He was retired, because it had become due.
Under the circumstances the order of the Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.