Ram Swarup Sharma vs Coal India Ltd. and Others

Satya Brata Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated September 11, 1991 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.O. No. 11358 (W) of 1991 whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge, inter alia, held that the writ application is not maintainable. The petitioner was a workman of the Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Admittedly there existed a dispute as regards his age. The petitioner was superannuated by an order passed by the competent authority of the Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. upon attaining the age of 60 years which was disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ application before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent to refer the matter to the Apex Medical Board and it was further indicated therein that the decision of the Apex Medical Board shall be binding both upon the petitioner as well as upon the respondent. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board. The decision arrived at by the Medical Board was a subject-matter of the writ application before the learned trial Judge. Before the learned trial Judge as also before us, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Apex Medical Board has failed to take into consideration the documents which were procured subsequent to passing of the order relating to his date of birth.

Keeping in view the fact that the dispute as regard age of a workman is a private dispute and can be determined only upon adduction of evidence, normally this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears that in the earlier writ application a direction was issued for referring the case of the petitioner to the Apex Medical Board, pursuant to the policy decision taken in that regard by the respondent company. If the Apex Medical Board was required to examine the petitioner medically, it was not required to exercise a quasi judicial function. In any event, in terms of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application the petitioner and the respondent were bound by the decision arrived at by it.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge has rightly held that a fresh writ application was not maintainable. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that this writ application does not involve any public law character.

For the reason aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J.

I agree.