Ti-iB HIGH OOUAT OF MAuHYA P^iAOESH AJ JABALPUR mxT pcTirioiijs*-^^ 't'^i?E_ias4_», PcTiTXQNEa : It.J.- |0\ ^;'^ '^y/ 'KSy^/ Sohan Singh S/o.Indersingh assd absat. 52 years Eic-ChargeiaaB Quarter y»«2-BSectarflo.6, Bhilai Qistrict Durg, Isi.P. V£R SU S BESPONUENTS ; -fi. J. /^12. /AS' 3. 4. The S-teel Autherity of Xadia Ltd», Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Through the Managing Directer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Uurg,(.Ai*P). The Superintendent, C.B.& B Cokeaven & B.P.P. Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai Dist.E'ict Durg, .P). The Presiding Cfficer Labour Court'"Dt.irg,, Utai 'B.oad Durg, District Dyrs.i.M.P). The ladustrisl Court ef ifcadhya Fradesn Tareugb its Member ^Bench at dalpur) Kiishna Sadan 16 H.J.G. Shanker Naqar Balpux, Distri.et fiaipur, M»F. £,g1;i.t;ion UNi-l£K..A^±£fc£. J22Z.^OF_i.£il§2.i.TyTIONOF li-iDXA •rii ^^.^il^^,SS& ^F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ii-'i-0' ^^ Writ Petition No. 2472 of 1994 Sohan Su^h -Versus- The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others <M>sssaiSSSg3 .^ Post for order on It Septeinber, 2005. Sd/- Satish K. Agniho^ Judge ^ llB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pfctition No. 2472 of 1994 Sohaa Siagh -Versus- The Steel Authorily of India Ltd. & others Mr. H. B. ^rawal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Mr. P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Advocate for fhe Respondents No. 1 and 2. ORDER ( /^.September 2005) Bv Justice Satish K. Aenihotri. 1. The present petition filed iinder Article 227 of the Constitution of India unpugns the order dated 7.3.1994 (Aanexure P/25) passed by fhe Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur in Appeal No. 182/M.P.I.R. Act/93. 2. The relevant facts, for adjudicatmn, are that fhe petitioner was appointed as Fitter, in the year 1959, in Coke Oven and By-product Department, Rhflai Steel Plant, Blulai, District- Dui^. The date of birfh of the petitioner was recorded in fhe service record, on the basis of his declaration, as '10.1.1932'. In Exhibit D/10, which is Line of Rroiaotion List (senionly Ust) for the post of Chai^eiuan, inentioning Revised Pay Scale w.e.f. l.9. 1970, the petitioner is pkiced at Srl. No.6 and his date of birth inentioned in this docuaient as '10.1.32. Likewise ia the Exhibit D/9, which is L.O.P. (Liue of Promotion) Seniority of Capital Repair Group (PubUshed vide No. - S(M&R)/Estt/Sen/74/(CR)/1636 dated 27.2.74, the Iiame of fhe -^ petitioner is placed at Srl, No. 1 in the cadre of Chai^einan aad his date of birfh is mientioned as '10/1/32' ia this docuinent, and thereafter it was contiaued to be recorded as 10.1.1932 on the basis offhe service record. According to fhc petitioner in Exhibit P/ l, which is Application Fonn for admission to fhe Provident Pund, for subinission ia fhe Of&ce ofthe Chalnnan Board ofTrustees, Provident Fund, Bhilai Steel Plant, fiUed in on 4.3.1983, his date of birth was inentioned as *l3.1.1942' by fhe petitioner and it was accepted by fhe Assistant Maaager (Persoiuie^ of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. The Declaration aad Nomination Fonn (Exhibit P/2) naade on 5,3.1983 by fhe petitioner also iadicated fhe date of birth of the petitioner as '13.1.1942'. The petitioner obtained a copy ofthe Birth Certificate in Punjabi language fix>m. the Chief Registrar (Births and Deafhs) Punjab on 24.4.1989 whereia the date of birfh of fhe petitioner was recorded as 23.1.1942. Subsequentiy, the petitioner obtaiaed English version of the date of birfh certificate iroia fhe ofi6ce of fhe Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 30.11.1992 whereiu fhe date ofbirth ofthe petitioner was recorded as '18.1.1942'. It is evident from this docuaient that the date of registratk>n wsts '23td Jaauaiy, 1942' and fhe Regfateation number was '678'. The petitiouer had received notice dated 8.9.1989 (Amiexure P/ 10) whereby he was infonned fhat on attaming fhe age of superannuation fhe petitioner would retire on 31.1.1990. Prior to this Dotice, tbe petitioner had been raising his grievaace to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 by subinittmg representations i.e. on 20.3.1989 (Annexure P/5), on 10.5.1989 (Annexure P/2), on 34.7.1989 (Annexure P/4) for correcting his date ofbirfh as '13.1.1942' instead of '10.1.1932'. That being aggrieved by the non correction of his date of birfh to 13.1.1942, fhe petitioner filed aa application under Section 31(3) read ^- ? \^> '•T':i';^s.'tc^^yg^i';; ';;.':-£^SS?T?S' 5. with Sections 61 aad 64-A of the Madhya F>radesh ladustrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act, 1960^ before fhe Labour Court, Durg praying for a reUef fhat his date of birfh be corrected as 13.1.1942 aad fhe respondents be directed to retire 1iim accordingly on fh.e basis .of his date of birth i.e. 13.1.1942. The Labour Court, Dur^;, drawiag adverse iuference froin the facts fhat fhe original service book could not be produced and fhe management had not taken any action against the erring ofBcials, and refying on the entry in fhe F'rovident Fund Form aod Declaration Form, and further relying on fhe birfh certificate, produced by the petitiouer, whereui fhere was contradiction in the date of birfh ia the certificate issued iu Punjabi language aud in the certificate issued in. EngUsh language, the Laboiir Court vide order dated 20.5.1993 passed in Case No. 172/M.P.I.R./89 declared the date of birfh of the petitioner as 13.1.1942 and directed the respondents to retire the petitioner after coiupletion of fhe age. of 58 years on fhe basis of fhe date of birfh of fhe petitioner as '13. l. 1943'. Feeliag aggrieved by fhe order dated 20.5.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Durg, the respondents fifed appeal under section 65 of fhe Act, 1960 before fhe Industrial Court, Raipur. The Industrial Coiut vide order dated 7.3.1994 passed in Appeal No. 182/M.P.I.R.Act/93, after haviug considered all the docuraents recorded fhe fiiidings that the seniority Ust of February, 1974 clearly iadicates fhe date of birth of the petitioner as 10.1.1932. Admittedly, recordiag ofthe date ofbirth in ttie seiuority list was on the basis of fhe date of birth recorded at fhe ttme of appointment ia the service book. It was fouad fhat no adverse inference caa be drawn because the service book, attestation form and ofher documents prepared at fhe tiTne of fhe appointment could uot be produced being the old docuinents. The Industrial Court, -^ ...iSsSSW however, found that fhe subsequent dociiments like Provident Fund Fonn, Declaration & Noinuiatiou Fonn ete. niade by fhe petitioner recordiag/inentioiung his date ofbirtti aa 13.1.1942 caiuiot be reUed upon for determining the date of birfh. The birth aad date certificate produced by fhe petitioner obtauied in Punjabi language aad EngUsh language have contradictoiy dates of birth. In Punjabi the date of birth was recorded as 23,1.1942 aad fhe fa.ther's naine was Dfl Sher Singh, no place of birth was recordcd ia the said certificate. In the subsequent date of birth certificate, the date of buth of fhe petitioner is mentmned as 18tfa Januaiy, 1942 and father's nam.e as Sher Singh. The Industrial Court did consider the said documents also. The Industrial Court ater haviag considered and haviag appreciated aU the docuinents aad depositions of fhe witnesses of fhe parties, came to the conclusion fhat fhe petitioner's date ofbirthwas 10,1.1932 and the petitioner was rightly retired fi-oia service on attaiaiag the age of 58 years. The Industrial Court vide order dated 7.3.1994 after recording fhe above stated reasons aUowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the award dated 20.5.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Dui^. I have heard leamed counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the Courts below. This Court has limited jurisdiction in exercise of its supendsoiy powers under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India. The High Court caa iaterfere only in cascs of erroneous assuiaption or excess of jurisdiction, refdsal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on fhc face of records, arbita-aiy or capricious exercise of powers of the authority or discrimiaation, flagrant error in procedure and recording of the perverse findings. In the present case I have not found fhat aay of the groitnd stated above has been invoked to seek iaterference ofthis Court. -^ 7. Stiri H. B. Agarwal, kamed Senior counsel with Miss Sangeeta Mishra, leamed counsel appearing for thc petittoner subinittEd fhat 1 the Laboiir Courfs order was perfectly legal aad sustoinable. The respondents were zinable to prove their case in abscnce of service book and attestation forms fhat the peti.tioner's date of birth was 10.1.1932 and not 13.1.1942. The petitioner has uot taken missmg of the records as seriously by not tektng aay action agaiast fhe ernng officials. The Industrial Court had recorded the findings on the basis of fhe seniorily list alone and completely j^nored fhe provident fund form and nomination form. fiUed in by the petitioner aiid accepted by fhe Managenient. The contradictions ia bofh date of birfh certificates ia Punjabi aad EngUsh are iasignificant. 8. Mr. P. Diwakar learaed Senior counsel with Mr. Mahesh Sharma, leamed coiuisel appearing for the respondents on the contrary subiuitted that fhe Industrial Court has considered aU fhe aspects of fhe matter aad the sanie is vaUd aad legal. Leamed counsel for fhe respondents further subinitted fhat fhis Court has limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India. Leamed counsel relied on fhe decision in Secretaiy & Conunissioner, Honie Department & ofhers Vs. R. Kriubakama, 1994 Supp (1) S.C.C.155 wherein the Supreine Court held as under: '7. An application for correction of the date of birth should noi be deatt with by the tribuncd or the High Court keeping in view only the pubKc servant ooncemed. It need not be pointed out thdt any sudz direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant ooncemed has a chcdn reaction, inasmuch as others wcdting for years, below hnnfor iheir respective pronwtions are affeated in this process. Some are Ukely to suffer irreparable irgury, inasmuch as, becaiise of the correction of the da.ie of birth, the officer ooncemed, conft'nues in offioe, in some casesfor years, vriihin which time ma.ny officxrs who are belaw him in seruority waitingfor their proniotion, G' -^ 6 I:fe^ll^t:^?^i!^l^ may lose their pronwtions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person aocepts appointmjent heeping in view the dcite ofretirement of his intmediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, ivhich canrwt be lost sight of by the ccurt or the tribundl while exaniinirtg ihe grievanoe ofapublic servant in resped of cxirrection of his date of birih. As sudt, icnless a dear case, on the basis of materiaJs which can be held fo be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, fhe caurt or the tribunal shauld not issue a diredion, on the basis of fnateriaJs whidi mdke such daim only plausible........° 9. In the case of Coiiunissioner of PoUce, Boinbay & aaofher Vs. Bbagwan. V. Lahane, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 247, reUed by leamed comisel for the respondents, the Suprenie Court held that entay in the service book ruade on fhe basis of fhe date ofbirfh is fiaal unless it is proved by the eiaployee fhat the said entiy was inade due to negl^ence on fhe part ofsoine other person or that it was an obvious clerical error. 10. In fhe case of G.M. Bharat Cokmg Coal Ltd. West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & others (2000) 8 S.C.C. 696, reUed on by leamed counsel for the respondents the Supreine Court held as under: '17. The dccfe of birth of an employee is not only impoTtani for the employee butfor the employer also. On ihe lengfh ofservice put in by the employee depends the quantum ofretiral benefiis he would be entitled to. Therefore, while detemaning the dispute in sitch matters oourts should bear in rmnd fhat a change ofthe date ofbirth Jong after joining service, particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly, will upset the date recx>rded in the service records maintctined in due course of administration should rwt generalty be accepted. In sudi a case the burden is heavy on the employee who oomes to (/ie court wi'f^l fhe case fhat fhe date of birth in the service record ntcantained by the emptoyer is untrue and incorrect. The burden can be disdvxrged only by produdng wxepiable eviderwe of a dinching nature. We are aonstrained to make this observation as we find that in a large mimber of cases employees v/ho ccre on the verge of retirement raise a dispute regarding oorrecfriess of the date of birth entered in fhe service record and the courts are incKned to -^ b T3^; pdss an. inlerim orderfor continiusnce of sudz employee beyond the dafe of superamvucction on the basis of ihe entry of dale of birth in the service record. Such a situation oaiwwl be cainunended for the reason thai the court in passing such an irvterhn order granfs a relief to the employee even before detenrwung the issue regarding oorrectness of the date of birth entered in the service record. Such interim orders creafe various complications. Antidpafed vacan.cy for whidz the emplayee next in the line has been waiting does rwt Tn.aleriaUze, on accounf of which the junior is denied promotion which he has cdl along been led to believe vjill be his due on the retirement ofthe seruar.' 10. In the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. S.M.Jadhav & aaofher, (2001) 4 S.C.C. 52 fhe Suprcme Court held that fhe employee cannot bc aUowed to raise a dispute with regard to fhe date of birfh at the fag end ofhis career. 11. It is settled position of law fhat the einployee should not be allowed to raise the dispute of the date of birth for correction at the fag end of his career. In Clause -5 offhe Cireular No. 87 dated 2nd August, 1974 issued by fhe Hindustan Steel Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plaat it is clearly provided fhat no chaage in ttie date ofbirth should be atlowed if such request is received during fhe preceding five years of service of the employee for any reason whatsoever. 12. The petitioner was retired from service on 31.1. 1990 on attauung fhe age of superanauation i.e. on coinpletion of 58 years of age ia accordaace with his date of birth recorded as 10.1.1932. The petitioncr has raised a dispute at the fa% end of his career knowiag fuUy weU fhat in all the seniori.ly Ust pubUshed earUer in fhe years 1970, 1974 aud thereaflter, had indicated the date of birfh of the petitioner as 10.1.1932. The documents produced subsequenfly cannot be taken into consideration. Soine of the docuinents nnmely Provident Fund Form, Nomination Form were filcd by fhe petitioner, -^ 8 ., -^-/^.^^i: and the certificates of birfh aad date produced by fhe petitioner ia Punjabi as well as in EngUsh are contradictoiy, as such, I do not find any perversity ia the findings recorded by fhe ludustrial Court to call for uiterference of this Court iinder Ardcle 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. From. fhe decisions cited above, it is clear that unless a clear case is inade out on fhe basis offhe inaterials which are held to be oonclusive in nature, the Court or Tribunal should not issue a direction for chaage ofthe date ofbirfh. For the reasons stated above, fhe petition is dismissed and the order dated 7.3.1994 passed by the Industrial Court is upheld. No order as to costs. SanjayK.Agrawal Thakur ^