1 wp-6650-03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 6650 OF 2003 Shri.Shivsevak Mahadeo Pathak ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. D.S.Sapkale Adv. for Petitioner Mr. S.D.Rayarikar AGP for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed in 1962 in Paint Shop of respondent no. 2. His case is that his date of birth is 10.7.1941 and not 1937 as is reflected in his service record. In March 1997, he received a letter from 2 wp-6650-03 the respondent-company that he was not to retire on 31.12.1997 on reaching 60 years of age, but as per the new settlement he was to retire on 6.4.1998. According to the petitioner, wrong date of birth was taken into consideration i.e. the year 1937 and not 1941 which according to him, is his correct date of birth. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 1(b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P.Act. The said complaint came to be dismissed by the Labour Court by order dated 17.8.1998. The petitioner preferred Revision (ULP) No.11 of 1999 before the Industrial Court Maharashtra Bench at Thane. The said revision came to be dismissed by order dated 28.9.2002. Hence, this petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that though he had informed the company that his date of birth is 10.7.1941, his service records were not corrected by Respondent-company. The entire matter revolves around the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on two School Leaving Certificates to support his claim that his date of birth is 10.7.1941. 4. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed on 2.4.1962. His year of birth in the service record and gratuity papers is mentioned as 1937. The said birth year was provided by the petitioner himself and admission to that effect is given by him in his letter dated 5.6.1991. 3 wp-6650-03 This date of birth was given by the petitioner himself way back in the year 1964 and it came to be challenged by him before the Labour Court in 1997 that too when he received intimation from the respondent-company about him being due for retirement on 6.4.1998. 5. It is pertinent to note that petitioner had informed in writing to the respondent-company on 5.4.1991 about the correction in his date of birth. His request was rejected. The reply of the respondent conveying the said rejection is dated 27.12.1992. Despite receiving the letter rejecting his request, thereafter no steps were taken by him till the year 1997 when he approached the Labour Court. The Court below has observed that period of limitation would have commenced in the year 1992 itself. However, it is contended by the petitioner that as he had preferred representations, it cannot be said that the said period of limitation commenced in the year 1992. 6. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the petitioner himself had given his year of birth as 1937. Subsequently, an application was given by him in the year 1991 stating that his date of birth is 10.7.1941 and to support his claim he relied on two School Leaving Certificates, one of Primary School and another of Junior College. The primary school record is for the year 1951-52 and the junior college record is for the year 1952-53. The School Leaving Certificate of the junior college is not very relevant as it is based on the School Leaving Certificate of 4 wp-6650-03 the primary school. As far as primary school leaving certificate is concerned in support of it, the petitioner examined Teacher Mr.N.P.Upadhyay from the school. Mr.Upadhyay has deposed about the date of birth mentioned in the school Leaving Certificate pertaining to the petitioner. The School Leaving Certificate is of the year 1951. However, it has come on record that Mr.Upadhyay has joined the school only in 1996. Thus, it is seen that teacher Mr.N.P.Upadhyay had no personal knowledge and was not an employee of the school at the time when the petitioner was studying in the school. A question was put to Mr.Upadhyay as to on what basis the date of birth of the petitioner is entered in the school record. The witness stated about the practice of entering the date of birth. The witness replied that the guardian who brings the child gives the date of birth and accordingly, it is written in the school records. It is seen that petitioner has consistently stated he had studied from the School from Standard I to Standard IV but Mr.Upadhyay has further stated that the petitioner had not studied in the school prior to 31.7.1951 Witnesses from both the Institutions wherein the petitioner took education were examined in support of School Leaving Certificates but the teachers who had deposed in his support, joined much after the petitioner had left the school or college. In the absence of the link who provided the information and whether that information was correct or not is 5 wp-6650-03 demonstrated, it will not be possible to accept the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate as correct one. A certificate or register prepared on the basis of the information given at the relevant time will not be conclusive proof for proving the date of birth, but it is necessary that the person who provided the details which are entered in the school record is examined. In other words, the proof of date of birth will be from the original records relating to date of birth like a birth certificate or from the person who supplies the relevant information and states on what basis it is given and how authentic is the source of information. It is not known as to who gave the details on the basis of which entries were made in the School Register. There is no evidence to show on what basis or on the basis of what documents the entries were made in the School Register. In this connection, it would be useful to refer to the decision in the matter of Bidarmal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 1796 wherein the ratio laid down by the Apex Court reads as under:- “Entries in the school register and secondary school examination record-- held, have no evidentiary value to prove the age of the candidate in the absence of the evidence of any person on whose information the date of birth had been entered in the school records. ” 7. As stated earlier, the case of the petitioner is that in the year 1991, he had preferred application for correction of his date of birth which was 6 wp-6650-03 rejected on 27.12.1992. Thereafter, no steps were taken by him in respect of said rejection and he has approached the Labour Court only in the year 1997 which is at a belated stage. 8. Reference may also be made to the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Ramsua Sharma reported in 1996, I-CLR 662. It has been observed therein that the Tribunal at a belated stage cannot entertain the claim of an employee for correcting the date of birth entered in the service record. 9. In view of the above, no fault can be found with both the orders i.e. order dated 17th August, 1998 passed by the learned Judge of IVth Labour Court, Thane and order dated 28th September, 2002 passed by the learned Member of Industrial Tribunal at Thane. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]