1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7252 OF 2008 Sarubai Gangadhar Ohol ....Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director, Padmshree Shri. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. ....Respondent. Shri. P.V. Barde, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18th of April 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmadnager thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present petitioner. 2. The petitioner was employee with the respondent, working from 1972. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had completed age of 60 years in the year 1999 and as such she was liable to be retired from the 2 service from 31st of November 1999. 3. The petitioner filed complaint containing that the date of birth of the petitioner is 13th of September 1942 and as such she was entitled to continue in the service and therefore, respondent had indulged in to unfair labour practice. The said complaint was rejected. 4. Shri. Barde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Industrial Court erred in rejecting the complaint. He further submits that the reliance placed on the agreement and medical test conducted for determination of age of the petitioner are not proved. 5. Shri. Hon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the age of the petitioner was determined by the medical panel in the year 1985. He further submits that from the year 1985 to 1999 there is no whisper regarding the incorrect date of birth. Admittedly, the petitioner had offered herself for medical examination in the year 1995, and her date of birth was determined to be 1.12.1939. Till the petitioner received the notice for retirement in the year 1999, she had not challenged the said date of birth. Only after notice of retirement is issued, she has filed the complaint in question. 6. It is settled law that the dispute regarding incorrect entry regarding the date of birth has to be raised within a reasonable time 3 and not at the flag end of the service. 7. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found in the approach adopted by the Industrial Court so as to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] ssc/wp7252.08