Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA versus GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR.

Decided
21 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 890 · 1997 INSC 420
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned.

p. 890, margin F

The respondent, when he entered into service did not place any documentary evidence like school leaving certificate etc. in support of his date of birth. Consequently, his case came to be referred to the Medical Board. Before the Medical Board, the respondent stated that his age was 20 years, but the Board on the basis his appearance and other features was of the opinion that he was around 25 years. He was due to retire from service on November 30, 1980. But he was allowed to retire on 30.11.84. On reference, the Railway Board gave the ex post facto sanction and directed the petitioner to retire him. w.e.f. 30.11.84 and retain him in service from l.12.80 to 30. ll.84 after giving him re-employment on usual terms and conditions. The respondent feeling aggrieved, filed application before Labour Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming all retiral benefits; the Labour Court granted him reliefs prayed for. The petitioners challenged the order of the Labour Court in W.P. No. 9647/96, which was dismissed by the High Court in limine on 10.7.1996. Thus, this special leave petition.

pp. 890–891, margin G

The power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were dealt with by this Court in Municipal Cmporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr., [1995] 1 SCC 235. It was held that the Labour Court is devoid of power and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claim or to give directions on that basis. The Labour Court at best has power to interpret the award and then work out the wages payable to the workmen in terms of the award etc. Shri Singhvi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner contends that in view of the above decision, the view taken by the Labour Court is not correct in law. We find some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel. However, in view of the law already by this Court in the above judgment, we think that on the facts and circumstances, this case does not warrant interference. However, it is directed that the judgment of the High Court or Labour Court should not be treated as precedent for any future cases as it is not consistent with the law laid by this Court.

p. 891, margin C

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 891, margin F