Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards

Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court

28 November 2024 9:58 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has allowed a writ petition challenging an order that required the petitioner to complete his pension papers based on a disputed date of birth. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Purohit, emphasizes the necessity for accurate verification of the petitioner’s date of birth and mandates that the Labour Commissioner resolve the dispute within three months.

The petitioner, Nazir Ali, challenged the order dated 7th May 2024, which directed him to complete his pension documentation, asserting that he would attain the age of 58 on 21st April 2024. However, Nazir Ali contended that his actual date of birth is 22nd April 1970, making him only 54 years old. The dispute led to the withholding of his retention allowance for the financial year 2021-2022, as he had not submitted his birth certificate.

The court underscored the importance of credible documentation to ascertain the correct date of birth. According to Clause LL of the Standing Orders Covering the Condition of Employment of Workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in U.P., disputes regarding a workman’s date of birth should be resolved by the Labour Commissioner.

The court recognized the arguments presented by both sides. The Senior Advocate for the respondents highlighted that the Provident Fund records, school certificates, municipal records, and other valid documents should be considered for verifying the workman’s date of birth. Justice Purohit noted that the consistent entries in these records are pivotal for resolving such disputes.

The judgment extensively discussed the procedures outlined in Clause LL, which mandates proper verification of the date of birth through reliable records. It was noted that the Provident Fund record initially serves as the reliable age record for retirement purposes. However, this record can be modified based on other official documents like school leaving certificates or municipal board certifications.

Justice Pankaj Purohit remarked, “The management shall give at least one month’s notice to a workman before retiring him, during which period the workman has the right to represent to the Labour Commissioner. Such representations should be disposed of within six weeks, ensuring timely justice.”

The High Court’s decision to allow Nazir Ali’s writ petition and direct the Labour Commissioner to resolve the date of birth dispute within three months reaffirms the judicial commitment to accurate and fair verification processes. This ruling emphasizes the importance of reliable documentation in employment disputes and ensures that workers are not prematurely forced into retirement. The judgment is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the legal framework for resolving employment-related disputes efficiently.

Date of Decision: 24th June 2024
 

Similar News