WP(C) 6627/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appear ed for the respondents inspite of service of notice. I have perused the records of the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in respect of the proceeding in question. 2. The matter relates to the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis o f which she was made to retire from service on superannuation age of 58 years w. e.f. 14.9.1997. A dispute relating to alleged pre-mature retirement from service having been raised by notification dated 5.8.1999, issued by the Govt. Of Assam , in the Labour and Employment Department, a reference was made to the learned L abour Court, to resolve the following issues :- 1(a) Whether the Management of Methoni Tea Estate is justified in retiring Mr s. A. beck, Nurse with effect from 14.9.97 ? (b) If not, is the employee entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof ? 3. The aforesaid reference having been answered against the workman and in favour of the Management, the petitioner has approached this Court. The impugned judgement and award of the learned labour Court, Dibrugarh is dated 19.10.2001 in reference case No. 7/99. 4. In the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, both the parties subm itted their written statements and laid evidence. 5. According to the petitioner, she having declared her age as 28 years at the time of entering the services of the Management, she should have been allowe d to continue in service upto 2007 but instead was made to retire from service w .e.f. 14.9.1997. 6. Ext.1 is the notice of retirement dated 14.3.1997 by which the workman w as informed about her reaching the age of 59 years 1 month 6 days on 14.9.97 and that she would be retiring from service w,e,f, 14.9.1997. Ext. 2(1) is the appl ication dated 31.3.97 addressed to the Management by the petitioner in her own handwriting in which she categorically stated about her retirement from service with effect from September, 1997. By the said application, she prayed for paymen t of Rs. 10,000 as cash advance against her gratuity amount payable to her. Ext. 2(3) is the signature of the workman. 7. Ext.4 is the application for pension that was read by the workman on 7.1 0.1998 in which also in the particular column, the petitioner disclosed her date of retirement as 14-9-1997 and age as 59 years 1 month. Ext. 4(2) is her signat ure in the said document. Ext.5 is a document with compilation of various partic ulars of as many as 41 Workmen including the petitioner, whose name appears at S l. No.36 of the said document. In the said document, apart from other particular s, her date of birth is shown as 8.8.1938. 8. Mrs. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sinc e the Management failed to produce any document to prove the recorded age/date o f birth of the petitioner in the service documents, she could not have been made to retire w.e.f. 14.9.1997 on some imaginary date of birth. She further submits that Ext.5 being not a signed document but being a document with certain entrie s, the learned Labour Court could not have placed reliance on the said documents . 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the entire materials on record. 10. If there was any mistake on the part of the Management in indicating her date of retirement as 14-09-1997 and her age as 59 years 1 month in Ext.1 lette r dated 14.3.97, the workman should have objected to the same but instead she ma de the Ext.2 application dated 31.3.1997 clearly mentioning therein her date of retirement as September, 1997. As noted above, by the said application she praye d for cash advance of Rs. 10,000/- from her dues. Not only that, the workman by her application dated 7.10.1998 (Ext.4) also declared her age as 59 years 1 mont h on the particular date and the date of retirement as 14-09-1997. On that occas ion also, no objection was raised whatsoever. 11. Though the Ext.5 is not a signed document but is a statement prepared by the Management furnishing service particulars of different incumbents including the petitioner. In the said document, service particulars of the petitioner, su ch as, salary, employment No., date of birth etc. were recorded. Under the Colum n date of birth it was shown to be 08.08.1938. 12. Although, Mrs. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner has arg ued that the aforesaid two documents had been addressed to the Management by the petitioner under compulsion and also on protest but on perusal of both the docu ments, nothing is seen regarding such protest. In Clause-IV of the written state ment dated 4.12.1999, following is the statement made :- 3) That in reply to the averments made in Para 4 of the written-statement o f the Management, it is submitted that he concerned work person verbally protest ed before the management against her pre-matured retirement. Failing this, she r equested the Management for extra financial benefits in lieu of this. 13. On perusal of the aforesaid statement, nothing is discernible that the w orkman had ever protested against her alleged pre-mature retirement from service . As regards the plea of extra financial benefit in lieu of pre-mature retiremen t, on perusal of the aforesaid exhibits, such plea is not discernible, rather th e petitioner duly accepted the date of retirement on the basis of her date of b irth recorded as 8.8.1938. 14. In the proceeding, the Management examined one witness. The petitioner a lso examined herself. In the deposition of MW-1, he proved all the exhibits. In the deposition of the workman herself, she had stated that she did not produce a ny Birth Certificate before the Management. As regard the retirement notice, she admitted writing the aforesaid exhibits to the Management. 15. The learned Labour Court in consideration of the above materials has rig htly held that the petitioner did not make any complaint before the Management f or correction of date of birth during her service tenure of 21 years. The learne d Labour Court has also referred to the aforesaid exhibits in which the petition er clearly admitted her date of retirement as 14-9-1997. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitione r (workman) and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 17. There shall be no order as to costs.