Delhi HC Upholds One Year’s Back Wages For Worker Fired A Year Before Retirement, Relying On Employer’s Earlier ESIC Date-Of-Birth Record Over Aadhaar

The workwoman claimed that she had worked as a “Finishing Man” since 1 December 1981 and that the management terminated her on 20 May 2017 after she demanded payment of wages.

The management contended that she had reached the establishment’s retirement age of 58 on that date, relying on an Aadhaar card recording her date of birth as 20 May 1959; it also alleged voluntary retirement and medical incapacity.

The Labour Court found that the management had recorded her date of birth as 20 May 1960 in the ESIC records in 2010, rejected the Aadhaar card as insufficient proof of date of birth, and held the termination illegal.

It awarded back wages at ₹14,698 per month from 20 May 2017 to 20 May 2018, with consequential benefits and interest.

The management challenged the award under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Under Section 2(oo)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, retirement on reaching the age of superannuation is excluded from retrenchment where the contract of employment contains a stipulation to that effect; otherwise, termination may constitute retrenchment, attracting Section 25F’s requirements.

In a writ challenge to a Labour Court award, the High Court does not sit as an appellate court and ordinarily intervenes only where the decision is without jurisdiction, perverse, or contrary to natural justice, as explained in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union.

An Aadhaar card is proof of identity but is not, by itself, proof of date of birth; the relative evidentiary value of conflicting documents must be assessed, as recognised in Saroj v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. and Mahender Yadav v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation.

A court may draw an adverse inference where a party withholds relevant evidence in its possession.

The management raised superannuation as its defence, so it bore the burden of proving that the workwoman was born on 20 May 1959.

Its sole supporting evidence was the Aadhaar card, which was not independently supported and had been provided to the management only shortly before the termination.

By contrast, the ESIC record showed that the management itself had supplied the date of birth as 20 May 1960 in 2010, before the dispute arose.

The management neither cross-examined the ESIC witness nor produced the underlying records for its entry, justifying an adverse inference.

The Labour Court’s preference for the contemporaneous ESIC record over the Aadhaar card was a plausible finding of fact and not perverse; therefore, it did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

Since the workwoman had not reached superannuation and the management failed to prove resignation or voluntary retirement, termination without compliance with Section 25F was rightly held illegal.

The writ petition was dismissed.

The amount deposited with the Registrar General, together with accrued interest, was directed to be released to the workwoman; any remaining amount was to be paid by the management within four weeks.

The pending application was also disposed of.