wp5793.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5793/2011 Murlidhar Chindbaji Gabhane -vs- The Sub Area Manager WCL and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Sen, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 08.12.2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur on 16th of December, 2010 holding that the action of the management in not correcting the date of birth of the petitioner was legal and justified and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Though the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01/07/1946 in Form B register when the petitioner was appointed by the respondent on 16/07/1974, the petitioner raised a grievance about his date of birth and sought a correction of the date of birth for the first time in the year 2003. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was born in the year 1950 and not in the year 1946. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, however, on an appreciation of wp5793.11.odt 2/3 the evidence on record held that the respondent was justified in not correcting the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in Form B register. The findings recorded by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal rightly considered that the review of the birth date could be made, by following the instructions in Clause B of Instruction No.76 which provided for the review and determination of the date of birth in respect of the existing employees. In view of the said Instruction, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate, higher secondary school certificate, issued by the recognized university and board or middle school pass certificate issued by the Board of Eduction or Department of Public Instruction should be treated as correct provided the certificates were issued prior to the date of employment. In the instant case, the petitioner was employed in the year 1974. The petitioner had not produced any middle school pass certificate or matriculation certificate before the respondent or before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Some other school leaving certificates were, however, produced on record, but they were issued on 11/02/1997 and 09/09/2002, i.e. much after the employment of the petitioner in the year 1974. Hence, the petitioner could not have availed the benefit of the procedure prescribed under Clause B of Instruction No.76 for correction of his birth date. wp5793.11.odt 3/3 The petitioner was not able to satisfactorily prove that he was born in the year 1950 and hence, the respondents rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for change of birth date. There is no error in the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal denying the relief to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE