- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 62917 OF 2012 (L-TER) BETWEEN: WEST-COAST PAPER MILLS LIMITED, BANGUR NAGAR, DANDELI, DIST: UTTAR-KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. CHANDRASEN S/O. HANUMANTH MASHALA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. H.NO.56, AMBADEVI KRUPA, G.N. ROAD, DANDELI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE DIST. JUDGE & PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE ADDL. LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID.NO.12/2009, DATED: 09.03.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE 'C' AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.Shivakumar S.Badawadagi for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in manufacturing of paper card boards and other allied products. The petitioner has been functioning as a factory since 5 decades. The respondent was appointed as a Mazdoor in Soda Recovery Department in the year 1774. According to the petitioner, the respondent had recorded his date of birth as 1949, but he has not produced any document to that effect. In accordance to the date of birth so produced, the respondent would retire after attaining the age of 58 years from service on 16.12.2008. The respondent raised a dispute challenging the retirement to be premature and calling the same to be dismissal on several grounds. It is also contended by the respondent that the date of birth - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 was not correctly mentioned despite the respondent furnishing certificate to the company. Hence he sought reinstatement and other service benefits. 3. The matter was contested and the Labour Court framed relevant issues for consideration and thereafter passed an award and allowed the dispute in favour of the respondent workman and directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an employee cannot be permitted to change his date of birth at the fag end of his service. Having kept quite untill his retirement and having received retirement benefits, he cannot reopen a closed chapter at his own whims and fancies, especially when the issue could and ought to have been raised at an earlier point in time. Therefore he contends that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary and perverse, and accordingly the same requires to be set - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 aside. It is also contended that the Labour Court has committed error in accepting the case of the respondent workman at a belated stage and awarded the retirement benefits, which is arbitrary and the same requires to be set aside. It is further contended that the Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to declare the age of an employee, as such a declaration falls within the domain of the Civil Court under the relevant statutes governing the registration of births and deaths, and not under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the petition. 5. Per contra learned counsel Sri.Shivakumar Badawadagi representing the respondent workman contends that as per the birth certificate, the respondent workman was born on 05.01.1953 and he has submitted the school leaving certificate to that effect showing the actual date of birth, but however despite birth certificate and school leaving certificate having been produced, he was illegally and prematurely retired from services from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 the company with effect from 15.12.2008. Therefore it is contended by him that the petitioner company despite having proper knowledge of the correct date of birth and verifying the school leaving certificate, has erroneously declared the date of birth of the respondent workman as the year 1949 for the purpose of ESI. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner company infact submitted another declaration of the date of birth of respondent workman to the provident fund office as 1953. Therefore it is also contended that the date of birth and year of birth have been entered without ascertaining the correct date of birth and year of birth. Therefore it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel that there is another three years of service of the respondent workman in the petitioner company. Appreciating all these aspects, the Labour Court has passed an order allowing the claim of the respondent and directing the company to pay an amount of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 Rs.1,50,000/- which does not call for any interference and the same requires to be sustained. 6. It is also further contended by the learned counsel that the award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the documents and oral evidence placed before the Court, to which the company had vehemently opposed and contested and the same was negatived against the company. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Labour Court. Hence he seeks to dismiss the petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials and the impugned award. 8. There is no dispute with regard to the workman employed in the petitioner company. The dispute is only with regard to what is the correct date of birth and year of birth of the workman. The workman has submitted his school leaving certificate which shows the date of birth as 05.01.1953. However for the reasons best known, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 company declared the date of birth of the workman as 1949 for the purpose of ESI office and 1953 for the purpose of PF office. It appears that there is discrepancy in the company furnishing the year of birth of the workman before two statutory authorities. Ultimately, the workman came to be retired on 16.12.2008, prior to the actual date of retirement. Hence the workman requested the petitioner company to put him back to the duties on several occasions, which was not adhered to or accepted by the company. Left with no option, the workman preferred a petition before the Labour Court and on placing several materials to prove his date of birth, he examined himself, produced several materials and was subjected to cross-examination. The company also adduced its evidence through witnesses, but was unable to succeed in the matter and the workman was successful in proving his date of birth to be 05.01.1953. Under the circumstances, the workman having succeeded in the Courts of law by producing relevant documents, I find no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7915 WP No. 62917 of 2012 good ground for interfering in the present petition preferred by the petitioner company. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is dismissed. The petitioner company is directed to pay award amount as per the award along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. ii. Upon the respondent approaching the petitioner, amount shall be disbursed to him or to his registered bank account. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66