EPF RECORD PREVAILS OVER LATER SERVICE RECORD ALTERATIONS FOR DETERMINING RETIREMENT AGE UNDER STANDING ORDERS

The respondent, Harjinder Singh, was engaged as a daily wager in 1982 and later regularized as a permanent Welder Grade-II.

The petitioner-employer retired him on 31.05.2022, asserting his date of birth was 01.05.1962 based on an affidavit filed during his regularization in 2005.

The respondent challenged this before the Labour Court, Kashipur (Adjudication Case No. 28 of 2017), claiming his actual date of birth was 01.07.1968 as recorded in the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) record, which would entitle him to serve until 2028.

The Labour Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the EPF record was the primary evidence under the Standing Orders.

The employer challenged the award through this writ petition under Article 227.

1. Whether the date of birth recorded in the EPF record takes precedence over a subsequent affidavit for the purpose of superannuation under the applicable Standing Orders.

2. Whether the High Court, under its supervisory jurisdiction, can re-evaluate findings of fact or the adequacy of evidence presented before a Labour Court.

Clause (LL) of the Standing Orders governing Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories, which mandates that the Provident Fund record specifying a workman’s age should be taken as the "reliable record" for retirement purposes.

Principles of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution as established in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., which restrict the High Court from acting as an appellate court or re-weighing evidence unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

The definition of "industry" was affirmed using Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa.

The Court observed that it is undisputed that the respondent’s date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1968 in the EPF Register while he was a daily wager.

Under Clause (LL) of the Standing Orders, this statutory record is final unless modified by specific documents like High School certificates.

The petitioner’s reliance on an unauthenticated School Leaving Certificate to dispute the respondent's age was rejected because the requirement for authentication applies only when an employee seeks a correction; here, the workman was merely relying on the existing EPF record.

The Court noted that the employer could not unilaterally change the birth date during regularization based on a contested affidavit.

Following the restrictive scope of Article 227, the Court declined to interfere with the Labour Court’s appreciation of evidence, noting that the tribunal's findings were neither perverse nor based on "no evidence".

The Court affirmed that it cannot correct errors of fact or re-examine the sufficiency of evidence under its supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Labour Court’s award, confirming the respondent’s date of birth as 01.07.1968 and rendering the premature retirement illegal.