"h. (O €. (/T'^ISOV- INLTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISARH AT BILASPUR VfKtTPEFrFSOTi^S0^2.'yZS/2003 /^ i PETITIONER SukhlaJ, S/o. Bhagela, Qr.No. 13, Tata Lines, Camp-2, Bhilai, Distt. DurgfC.G.) VERSUS .r_ RESPONDENT -^ y> ^^: ,. ".^sP-"' tUai Steel Plant, Through Managing Director, Sail, Bfailai Steel Plant, BhHai, Disft. Durg (C.G.) WRrT_PETmON UNDERA@riGLBJ226_/:227 _QFKTHE CQNSTmjTIQN QEINBIA F©RISglE-iaNOE OP'WRM' 3 ; THfe;NATffiEQFMANDia/t1^1fi@aBMSRI[E%C8< ^ANX; OlBjB^^iRE(^IONS^Rl©®'EtWe ^UiastI€;EW^;H^ MSSTER.l :'\ -1' :^.'':;'^-::-:;":: -^' . . .^;3 "ia(!8BI!"' SS'*IB':?^SB'"S ;.^-1 HIGH COVRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (e.CiJ m-it Petttion Wo.393S/2(X)3? Siikhlal Vs. BfailaiSteeIPlant •,/''.: 0;RlI»»sR Postftu- 31.01.3005 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^f^ l!' i;.:i!l!S ;l.i: m 's^ :s'a l.il a'ss, il)!'Ail;!KI'tti I^pS^|Sl@^J ! HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA8PUR(C.G) WritPeUUonNo.393S/20&3 Sukhlal' Vs. Bhllai Steel Plaat ShriS. Poptaiu, counsel for fhe petitioner. Ku. Prifha Ghoshal, counsel forthe respondeut. ^ ciT ORDBR O [.01.2005) SuaU Kumar Sinte, «L By fhis wrft petition fil«luuder Ardcle 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India, ttie petitioner has challenged the legallly, validily ahd propriely of fhe impugned order dated 09.2.2003 passedbytlie Industrial Cotut, Raipur, inCivy Appesd No.l04/MPIRAct/A/II/2003 bywhich an appeal agaiast the order passed by the labour Courtiin Case No. 12/MNR Act/98 on 28.2.2003 Iias beien disiiiissedand theorderhasbeen confinaed. . (2) Thefacts ofth.ecasearefhatthepetitioiieTfiled^ appUcation before the Labbur Courti.^s3I(3) ofthe Ml^ Industrial Rclattons Act 1960 for the reljcf of ( •' •. •;.,:•".. ••.;:'.' •. - • • • . •• . . .' • • ';- correctkui of date bf "birth in lus service record. prayed fhat fhe date bf birfU recorded as OQi.l. 1SWS liirii T' fe Ji&-:1 '••^ 3^- the service record be changed as 17.6.1950. The case of fhe petitiouer M that he entered ia the services of respondcnt's Steel Plant in the year 1972. When fhe service records werc prepared in fhe year 1978, by mistake, his date ofbirfh was rccorded as 09.01.1945 whereas his correct date ofbirthis 17.6.1950. When fhe petttioner eame to kaow about thls wrong eirtiyln the service record, he submitted aa appUeation before the concemed aufhority on 02.7.1984 andprayedfor correction of his dateofbtFfhas 17.6.1950. Healso made several oral^reqi.iests Uut tio action was taken ia this regard. UIta&Lately, on 09.QI.1998 he agaia gaye an applieatioa but the date of birfh was not corrected. Wheia. aU fhe eflbrts. of the petitioner weut va. •veait, fbc petitioner filed fhe iastant applicatfon before the labour Court. (3) The respondent caused its appearance aad fiKd written stateiaent denying the contentions pf fhe petitioner. It was plcaded by the respondent thflt actuai date of birfh of fhe petitiouer is 09;01.1945. JIt w^s specifiEatty pleaded that fhe petitioncr declared itus da( of birfh as 09,01.194®.Qn Uis apppiaatiaent m Ithe^^^i^^ he subimtted Iiis attestatKSmfbrmon 06.06.W^ 1 ^a I..I wfaich he declared his age as;33 years.l By conigutaMflimJ i::g! ii!i:! .-'a- -^- lus year of birfh was recorded as 1945. It was,furttier contended that on 09.1,1978 fhe petitioner was medically examined by the Senior Industrial Medical Officer before whoin he declared his age as 33 years. HM dateofbirth was eoinputed as 09.1.1945 on the basis of the inedical certificate. The petitioner was again examined by fhe Seaior Industrial Medical Officer on 13.8.1983 before whom. also he declared lusage as 38 years. It was also contended that fhe petitioner had m.ade aa appUcation on 02.05.1994 for issuance of service certificate to obtain fhe driviag licence. He was ? ^ ' ' / issued the said certi.BCate on 03;5;I994 in wtuchL Ilis date of birttt was showa as'09.1:1945. The petitibnfir did not raise any objectioa regaTdiag his said date ofteu-fh. In fact, fhe respondent denied fhe aforesaid claim Of fhe petitioner aad contested the matter on thc point fhat ffae actual date of birfh, as declared by the petitioner and assessed by fh.c inedical examination-boaTd, fixlin tiine to tiiae, was 09.1.1945 and thesamc cannot be changed, fherefiwe, (he petitioner is to rctire 6n31'ltJanuary 2005 aad fhe applieation should be disBUSsed. Ifffi! 1..1 (4) The labour court flamed yaiious issues ia thls c^e and after recording evidenGe offhe parties dismissed the csise of fhe petitioner holding that the petitk>ner GQUB m -tr ..^.. notprovc his aGtualdate ofbufh to be 17.6.1950 and no correctidns in fherecoTds arepossjbleinthe inatter. ^ (5) ^aiast fhe aforcsaid order passed by fhe labbiu- Court on 28.2.2003, the petitioner filed aa appeal before the iadustrial Courfc The said Gourt also d^nussed the appeal of fhe petitioner aad coitfirmed ftle order passed by the labour Courfc It is agaiust fhis order, fhe petitioner has filed this pctition zinder Article 226/227 of the Gonstitution of India. y - {6} Leamed coui^el fixr thfi petitioner subinits fhat jn fact, the; actual date of birth: of ftie petitkuier is 17.6.1950 and fhe laboiu- Court as well as the industnal Court erred ia law ia holdiag fhat the petitioner cotild not estabUsh fhat his date ofbirfh was 17.6.'I950 and no correction was possible in. fhe serviee records of fhe petidoner. Leanied counsel also subiiiits fhat in fact, fhe courts below recorded perverse fuidiugp ia this regard and fhe iffitpugned judgsnent deserves to be quashM tiyi fhis Court. The coiirtsbek>winisappreciatedtlieeritiy0fl Ex.P-2 (Birth Registei) whicdi was an uTeftttaKle! document:regardiag the feu:t in issue. ii.ES ••I 1(1 iiii' :it3' -1-^ (7) Retum bas been filed oa behalf of the respondent. The respondent has takeh a preltmmaiy objection regaidiag inaintauiability of fhe writ petition. It is subcaitted fhat fhe labour Court as weU as fhe m.dustnal Court, after considering the entire eviden.ee on record aad after giving due opportunily of hearing to fh.e petitioner rcGorded a fmdiag that in. fa.et, fhe petitioner could not estabUsh that his date ofbirfh. was 17.6.1950 aad fhis Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate pr consider fhe evidence to substitute its own decisiQnas ao. appeUate aufh.ori.ly aad r.. . •• ' •:' • " • '• ' fhe petition is noj^ mamteiDable. The respQDdent has also dfiiueffltiie daini oftlie petitionjeT on merits. (8) I have gone fhrough ttie reconls ofthe iabourcourt aad have also perused fhe judgnieiit passed by the labour court as wcU as fhe injdustrial Court. (9) The pefttioner had examiaed taaay witaesses &r provuig his case before fhe labourcoiirt. He himselfwas examiaed as A.W. 1. Anofhjerwituess namjelyNohati t?as examiaed asA.W.2. A viUagc Kotwar namely Baihiam i. r' :i was exauuncd as A.W.3 and one Pramod Kuxnar Du&ey, 1:T!J ^ wfao iwas worfcit^ as Head-<3opi!est ih fhfi offfcedfjttie CoUector Bilaspyr; was exaiumed as A.W.4. The 3 •:'. l^! I .-'/^-&^ applicant had also examiaed two witoesses namely Santosh Siagh Bais aud S.W. Govardhaa who were fhe eniployees of the respondent-estabUshinent. All the witaesses of fhe petitioner have tried to brm.g on rccord tfaat the actual date ofbirth offhe petitioner is 17.6.1950 as the petitioner was weU kuown to theia. The viU^e persons have deposed accordiag tq fheir meinories. Not oxily fhis, fhe petitioner has filed various documents, in which Ex.P-2 is fhecopy of pagc.no.88OfBirtli Register ofvillage Peeparlod which shows aa entryofdate ofbirth on the name ofthe petitioner as 17.6.1950. (10) The respbndent has filed vaxious documents wtiich are in fact fhe service records in which fhe date of birfh of the petttioneris naentioned as09.1.1945. The attestation form imder fhe fhumb impression of fhe petMioncr is filed as E^.D-1, It bas also filed a copy of Circular No. M&R - 52/82 dated 17fhMay 1982 (Ex.D-7) alongwith fhe rules re^rding dfiternunationoftheidate ofbirfli. Rule 4.4 andrule 4.10 are relevaot. Rulie! 4.4 ]ays down fhe provisaoas for those persons wfao ha^||not passed Matdculatipil/School Knal examuiajtfjau/ equwatent examlaation at the tijaie of entexiti^llflaue ! service.Thisrule^isquotedasiiDder: F 1 ll! i '4.4 .&i oEi^fcf^fthasewho^haue^T^:^^ JMafrKa(to(ion/S<^o? .FEha^^ -7- •:N, 4.-; excmanaticfn at the titneof enlering the senrice, the fonowing d.ocuments oorttaining ftfe oEate qf birlh nuxy be aocepteeias evidenx of age, wvthe order in whidi they ccre enumergled belofw fin other words evidervx at (b) vnllbe acoepted only ifemderice at (a) isnot possible, cmdso on, (a) Sdwol Certificale from eduoationaJ institution where the ca.ndidccte/employee studied. (b) ' Servioe tecord/senmx certifioatK issued by premous employer in oase of candidafes/eTnpIoyees who hadbeeninemployrrv^tcni^pubHcSecfor, enferprises/Govemment depiartments or a local body prf'or tojoining SAIL. (c) Attested exh-actsfrwn Register ofBirth& Death mmntained by Qram Panchayats, MurddpaKty, Murdapal^ Corporation, Town/notified area or an appropriate authority. (d) Bcffftism Certtfi(Xtte from Chur<St in case of etnploy^^/iwroscope in case 6f Hindu employees. (e) Certificate ofbiTthfivTnGovemnnenthospitals where^hecancKdccte/emplayeewasWorrt.' -; Rule 4.10 deals ia respect offhe employees whose date ofbirth has already been recorded ia fhe describtive i:..-*-' •l roU/ dficlaratiou {oTOi. TWs rule is also quoted as ua|der; '4.10 In resped ojFthose wnptoyees fifffeose (^c^ o/' birth hasscdteadyj^enreairdedin. ihs SeSwipftve roV/^dedcaxttwn.^^orrn^serwee biwk ofihe^eTn^lfyyee^ qnd sigrteiy^fatmb^itnpreSsed by him, ffie daXe Tecordedshanbe iXeemedasfinalandbtndhi^ In fact, these rulest.are fUe gitulelines on the of iwhich fhe date af' birfh of an employee isi Bajsis determmfid, at the tune ofseitteiAag in the Jsenncel^f respoDdent^ establjshment Tbiesei are not •ttte •'^ 'i soi toe tKe S ifbr -8- determination of fhe date ofbirfhof aa employee when his date ofbirfhis already entered into descri.ptive roU/ declaration form./ servicebook and is si^ied and fhuxnb ioipressed by him (Please see rule 4.10). f^-^r'5 1 (11) The labouc court after appreciating fce entire evidence on record (oral aud docuiacntary), referred to above, and after due aaalysis of fhe same canae to conclusion that the pctitioner couM not estabUsh that his actual date ofbirfhwas 17.06.1950 aad fhe eutiy ia theserviee reQBrd as 09.1.1945 is iacorrect. After appreciatmg t6fi eutire evidence of the parties the labcnu- court has dismissed ih.e petition. WIien fhe appcal cam.e before the industrial Court, the Industrial Court agaia examiaed fhe legality of fhe evidence iucluding that of thc entry ia birfh register Ex.P-2 aad after;analyzing the same, came to fhe conclusion fhat fhe ^nding recjorded by fhe labour Gourt wasjusfr^aad proper aad fhe same M not required to be iaterfered uader fhe appellate jurisdictioii. | i v (1'2) AftBrfhedecision'offhelabourCourtasweUjas|fhe iadustrial Court, this petition is in fact uxuier Arti<}le 227 i;t! i !j! i OftheConstitutionofInjdiawUerethjejunsdK^aoBJG^^ ]ifj Courtlis lunited. Tte^jurisdictiDn of tbe H^U j(3<»urt ] 'l "^f -9- under Article 227 has been discussed by fhe apex Coiu-t in fhe matter ofEstndIa Jtub&er —Ws-Deiss Estate t LtO. reported in (2001) 8 SCC Fa.97. The apex Court has laid down the prmciple that wlule dealmg wifh a matter under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India, ttiough fhe High Court is du.lty bound to keep inferior courts and tribunals wiftmi fhe bounds 6f their aufhority aad to see that they do fhe duty expected or required of fhein in a legal niamier, but ttie High Court is not vcsted wifh any uiilunited prerpgative to correct aU kinds of hardship or vroD^[*tiGcisions; made wifhin the limits of -/' . • .:, . ••• jiu-isdiction of fhe suboixlmate courts or tribunals. Exercise^offhe pQweriaiul uiterference wifh fhe orders of the Cdurts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereUction of duty aud flagrant violation of fundameatal principles oflaw orjustice, where ifthe High. Court does not interfere, a grayeiitjusticereinauisiuicorrected. Itis1 ateo weU settlcd that in fa.et, fhe High Courtwhile actmg Tinder fhis article caniiot exercise ite power as aa appeUate Court or substitute its own judgineut in plaasi of fhat of fhe subprdinate Court to correct aa error,; wfaich is not apparent on fhe face of the record, 'TON; High Gourt eau s6t ^ide or ignore fhe findin^s offactsj an iDferiprcourtor;tiibunal,iffhfireis ap evidence at |aU| tojustifyorlthe findingis Sq perverse, that noireas(>Dal!)i -10. •<-s-i t^iSS's person can possibly-come to such a conclusion which the court or tribuxial has coine to. ^ The apex Court farther held in fhe matter of iSaparbed M. SfdtUcr emd others -Vs- Ktimesh S. aankeire /deea^ IwZr.its.. reported iu (2001) 8 SCC 477 fhat ia a petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution, the High Court has to see whefher fhe lowcr court or fhe tribiinal has jurisdiction to deal wifh the inatter and if so, whetUer the impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularity; ia other wonls, fhe Cowt is concemed aot with fhe decision butwith the decision inaking pwxess. (13) Lcamed counsel forthe petitioner, relying upon fhe decision reported in 12003) 6 SCC 483 (State of U.P. <wid others -Vs- QulalcM. (Smt.f aigued that the petitioner was entitled to file aa application for correction ofdate ofbirth ifhe was ia possesslon ofirrefutable proof relatiag to his date of birth as dlfferent fi-oih fhe one earlier recorded. He relied upon para 9 of fhe decteipn which makes a reference t6 fhe case Of!Wmi,ffX cWt— Vs-Seimam Stnghfl9931 2 8CC 162, He subnuts that r '. fhe petitioner was weU wifhin fhe authoiity tofile sVLola. an applica.tjon aud'since tie was in possession ^of irrefutable procrf wbiich Ite faas furmshed befere trie] Y \\- labour Cburt, the labour court would faave belicved fht sanie and passed au order ia hjs favour. S'-l ^&ft 4. y. (14) Here fhe dispute is not in relation to fhe question of right of filing an appUcation before tfae competent aufhority orbefore fhe labour Court. The dispute falls in a narrow coinpass Eind the Saxae is fhat, ifthe two cOurts below after due appreciation ofthe eviderice fumished t>y the petitioner aad the resppndent incluxtmg fhe copy bf entay ofbufh register (Ex.P-2), on which heavy relianceis placed by fhe petttioneT as aa B-refeitable «vidence, caD^e^ to t^ .-eontdusuMi^fBat'Uie^p^ estabUsh tbatJa.'WKmg ea^^fi^ Ueen iiiade in ^ rccord aad hisdateofbirtltis 17.6.1950, fhen it <samiMbesaid^^^a ualess thc fiiiding in relation to the above factis perwerse or is held ito be iacbrrect, the same can be uitei'fered Uy tfais Courtynder Article 227 ofthe Constitutionl oflndia. The entry ofbirfh r^ister has been Iteld to be fabe aad conccxsted. The reasons assigaed by ffae twQ cottrts beknv are cogent. Thc anatysis is prDperj[iaiiid -nc^ iaterference is possibteat ttusst^e. ;: i (15) • Counsel ftu- -the petitiOneT Uas also1 reli^;^ .decisioa: :.repoFted,:im'.iM..R,Weefcl^r'^foWei^'SaSCk^^WNQI&S^ 3<W;p^'A»^^^iS^-I^.Oin:liDW^^ -(•>-• <^ .-'•<>.; c.. to show fhat the High Court has issued a mandamus for correction ofentiy ofdateofbirttiiafhe service record of fhe petitioner because the statutoiy document in relation to the date of birUi issued by fhe Mtinicipal Board was not considered. Itisadistmguishablecase. RuSlly, the genuineD.ess of the docuinent was not ia questiou in fhe said case aad Secondly a represen.tation of the employee was filed before fhe concemed aufhprily aad the said autfaority disposed of the representation without considermg fhe said document in relation to date ofbirfh aanexed to the representation. Admittedly, there was no intervention offhe Court or fhe tribunal or any; statutoiy body einpowered with the .jurisdictiou of adjudication on fhe point. The case in. hflnd cannot be govemed by fhis / law. In fhis case, the labour Court has adjudicated fhe uiatter and has recorded a findiug and fhereafter an appeal in fhe industrial Coiut was also filed, therefore, the petitioner cauaot take advanlage of the aforesaid law laid downbyfhe M.P.High Coiirtand pray forissiiance |of inaudainus in ttus reganl. i (16) Ater going through the entire records of fhe case ) '••'! ^nd afiter considering fhe facts and circumstances aad inatenal on record, ttus Court is of the opiaion fhat fhjel^ are no;glaring circumstance iatbis case uiulcr whict), aa T^T^ /-?<;• ••" -^2 13- interference is required under Article 227 of fh.e Constitution of India as fhe leamed counsel for fhe petitioner could uot poiut out aay perversity or fftegalily in the judgment of the two courts below. The courts below have recorded a positive findiag ^aiust fhc petitioner'aad the saine caiuiot be uiterfered ia fhis petition at fhisstage. The petition. has no merit and the same is dfainissed with no order as to the cost The recoids of thc Labour Gourt as well as thc Industrial Court be sent back imiaediately, Sd/- o .'. y \ SunilKumar Sinha ^r-^ / i Judge ,1 -v. Rao