1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7056 OF 2009 Babu S. Bhandare .. Petitioner Vs M/s. Pfizer Limited .. Respondent Mrs. Deepa S. Punde for the petitioner CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 14th October, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - workman. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a driver with respondent company since 1971. On 31st December, 2003, he was retried from service by the company. According to the petitioner, he came to be terminated from service without following due process of law and he requested for reinstatement. His case is that he could not have been superannuated on 31st December, 2003 as his date of birth was not 1st January,1943 but it was 1st January 1947. On 31st December, 2003, he had not completed age of 60 years, hence he could not have been superannuated. Being RMA wp7056-09.sxw 2 aggrieved, the petitioner raised a dispute. Eventually, the dispute came to be referred to the 9th Labour Court, Mumbai. By order dated 5th March, 2009, the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his date of birth is 1st January, 1947 and not 1st January, 1943 as is reflected in the records of the respondent company. His further case is that right from 1990, he wrote several letters to the company and informed that his correct date of birth is 1st January, 1947 and not 1st January, 1943. However, no steps were taken by the company to correct his date of birth in the service records. The respondent company turned down his request as being a belated request and the company informed him that he will be retired on 31st December, 2003. This was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 10th November, 2003. 4. The crux of this matter is about date of birth of the petitioner. If he proves that his date of birth is 1st January, 1947, then he will succeed. In order to prove that his date of birth is 1st January, 1947, the petitioner has relied upon his driving license, the RMA wp7056-09.sxw 3 certificate of age, nationality and domicile (domicile certificate) and his school leaving certificate. 5. Admittedly, when the petitioner joined services, he has given his date of birth as 1st January, 1943. Copy of his driving license also shows that initially his date of birth was noted thereon as 1st January, 1943 and later on it was corrected to 1st January, 1947. As far as the driving license is concerned, it is seen that it was issued on 13th September, 1962. It had already been observed that earlier the date thereon was 1st January, 1943 which has been later on corrected to 1st January, 1947. Driving license is issued to a person who has attained age of majority i.e above 18 years of age. If according to the petitioner his date of birth is 1st January, 1947, then on the date i.e when the driving license was issued to him, his age would hardly be 15 years. It is not believable that the authority will issue driving license for four wheeler to a minor person who has not attained the age of majority. Thus, the date of birth i.e 1st January 1947 on the driving license cannot be relied upon. As far as domicile certificate is concerned, it is seen that it is obtained in the year 1990. The school leaving certificate has been obtained by RMA wp7056-09.sxw 4 the petitioner on 27th December, 1998. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entry relating to the date of birth in school leaving certificate can be relied upon. As far as school leaving certificate is concerned, no witness has been examined in respect of school leaving certificate. No teacher or employee from the school has been examined in respect of school register on the basis of which the school leaving certificate was issued. It is not known on what basis, the entry was made in the school register and who gave the information on the basis of which the entry was made in the school register. In absence of any link as to who provided the information and whether that information is correct or not is demonstrated, it would not be possible to accept the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate as correct. 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 supplied the relevant information and states on what basis it is given and how authentic is the source of RMA wp7056-09.sxw 5 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. Thus, it is not possible to take this document into consideration. In this connection, it would be useful to refer to the decision in the case of Bidarman 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 far as the age on the domicile certificate is concerned, it is obtained in the year 1990 i.e after getting date of birth changed in the driving license. The initial document itself is not reliable, in such case, the domicile certificate which is based on the earlier document, cannot be relied upon. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no evidence has been led by the respondent company in respect of date of birth RMA wp7056-09.sxw 6 of the petitioner and hence, adverse inference be drawn against the company. However, it is seen that it is the petitioner who claims his date of birth is not 1st January, 1943 but it is 1st January, 1947. In such case, the entire burden is on the petitioner to prove his date of birth and merely because the respondent company has not adduced any evidence, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the company. The Labour Judge has considered all these aspects and thereafter dismissed the claim of the petitioner. No case is made out for interference in the order passed by the Labour Court. Writ petition is dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp7056-09.sxw 7 RMA wp7056-09.sxw