-w lii THE iiIGli COUBT OF MADUYA P.tiAUcSH Al JABALPUM. wai'r pia'iiieN_ji!o.-^^'a^ OF 1994 - P£I1TIOME1:1 :- Bansilal .3/s Baanat.ti^^ed about 56 year residen-t. af C/o B.B.CSauhaH Kirana Oukan, Bairain Chowk Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bbilai, Distrtct Dyrg,[MP) ^" V'E H SU S 2. RESPONDENTS ;-/ii,« ^ ^ Tfae Steel Auttority ®fIndia Ltd. BhilaiSteel Plant Biailai, , Tbreugh Manag.ing Directar Bhilai Steel Plant, Bbxlai District Durg, (M.P). , • 2. T.be Presl.ding Ofiicer, .Labeur -^Caurt Durg, Utai a®adDurg, District Durg, M.P. 3. The Industrial Csurt »fte.P. ^ aalpur Berach j through its Meaber KrishnaSadan 16 H.I.G. Shankar.Nagar, Haipur,0istrict Baipur, te.P. . E£TlT.tOM UNDEB 'AKTIQLES 227:Xif_QQw3TiruiION 0£_g^^, A^^ ^ ^-. Lf. £>4 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Slngle Beach: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 2483 of 1994 Petitioner Respondents Versus Baasfflal The Steel Authority of India 2 others. 9. Shri Paukaj Agrawal, counsel for fhe Petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakeel, counsel for the respondent No. 1. ORAL ORDER (5th AprU, 2006) In the present petition fhe question of law involved is whether a photo copy of Kutuinb Register be treated as Birfh Certificate issued by fhe Graui Panchayat. The petitioner subinits that at fhe time of appoiatinent of petitioner ou the post of Mason in Cocovan Division of fhe respondent No.l/plaat, m the attestation fonn issued by fhe Divisional Engineer Cocovan Division, the date ofbirth ofthe petitionerwas recorded as 1934. The petitioner, subsequently, by letter ui the year 1983, raised a dispute wifh regard to his date of birfh aad filed attested photo copy of Kutiunb Register wherein date ofbirfhofthe petitioner was stated as 5.7.38. No decision was taken on the said letter oftlie petitioner at that tune, and later on it was rejected. .^ '••t- .^RT'l,.*'•»- i«ll(f' 4. Beiag aggrieved the petitioner filed axi application under section 31(3) of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, before fhe Labour Court, Durg, in 1989. 5. The Labour Court by its judgeinent aad order, dated 29.10.93 on the basis of fhe photo copy of the Kutunib Register approved by Grani Paachayat, Raiapur Paadey aUowed the application of the petitioner aad declared the date ofbirth ofthe petitioner as 5.7.38. 6. In the iiieaatune, the petitioner retired from sen?ice on31.8.1992. 7. Being aggrieved, eniployer/respondent No.l ffled an appeal before the Industrial Court under Section 65 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. 8. Leanied raeinber bf the Industrial Court, after having considered fhe facts of fhe case held fhat fhe photo copy of the Kutuiab Register, produced by fhe petitioner does not conie wifhin the ineaning of Gram Paachayat Certi&cate which is permissible under circular dated 2nd August 74, for detemiuiattOD. of date ofbirth. Accordingly, the appeal offhe respondent No.l was aUowed, by order dated 15.3.1994 (Annexure P- 22). The petitioner has ffled this petition irapugniag the oider of Industrial Court dated 15.3.94 (Aiinexure P- 22) on the ground fhat fhe Industrial Court comiaitted aa error by not cpnsidering fhe photo copy of the Kutumb Register, as fhe saine was maintained and attested by the Gram Pancliayat, Ratupur Pan4ey. u a B^j ~-'«- 9. '^~v ;lSi®@)f! :..^5<> 10. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, leamed coiuisel submits that as per sub clause (1) of clause 2 of the circular No.87 dated 2nd August, 74, ia case a dispufe with regard to date of birth is raised, the samie be considered and the certificate of Grain Pan^chayat xaay be inade a basis for fixation of date of birth. Learued coxiiisel conteuded fhat fhe Kutuiub Register is inam.taiiied by fhe Grani Panchayat aad fhe photo copy of Kutuinb Register is as <•• good as Gram Paachayat Certi&cate, as per requireinent ni the eircular 87. Leamed counsel furfher contended that siace the date ofbicth was not recorded at the tune of joining of fhe service, the Graai Panchayat certificate is concliisive for fhe purpose of detenniaation of fhe date of birth. Leamed counsel further subnuts that the case of the petitiouer is coveied by the circular dated 14th August, 68, (Annexure P-1) whereia, it is clearly provided fhat the certificate of date of birth of the Gram Paachayat be accepted as evidence of age aad Kutuinb Register produced by the petitioner is deeined to be a date of birth certificate fi-oin Gram Panchayat Shri Kashif Shakeel, learaed counsel for the respondent No.l, per contra, subiuits fhat as per circular dated 14th August, 68, the date of birth of the petitioner has to be established on fhe basis of age declared by fhe petitioner at fhe time of joining of service in atl the authentic docuinents such as "', ^ ' ... • 'T 'f 'SfS—' 11 provisional seryice book, service fonn etc. In the attestation fonn (Aruiexure P-8) the age of the petitioner is recoried as 37 years, Calculating the date of birth of tfae petitioner on the basis of declaration of his age the date of birth of the petitioner should be August, 1934. Leamed counsel furfher contended fhat the certificate as conteinplated ia the circular dated 14A August, 68 and further circular 87 dated 2nd <- August, 74, do not provide for productiou ofphoto copy of fhe Kutunib Register, but the actual certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. Leamed Indiistoial Tribunal has rejected the Kutuinb Register certi&cate aad fhe said certificate was not treated as Gracu Paachayat Certi&cate for the purpose of deteniunation ofthe date ofbirth ofthe petitioner. Having heard leamed coiuisel for the parties and having perused records, it is clear that the findings and reasons recorded by fhe Industrial Court is correct. Photo copy of fhe Kutuinb Register attested by the Gratu Paachayat is not a Gram Paachayat Certificate as prescribed ia the circular dated 14f11 August, 68 and circular dated 2nd August, 74. Circular dated 14th August, 68 (Annexure P-1) clearly prescribes that the age of the einployee declared ia the aufbentic docuinent including attestation form at the timc of joiniag of the service is final and conclusive. Admittedly, the date of birfh of the petitioner recordefj. •t ' .: ^--' ~ti liliib w 12. ui attestation. fonii was 37 yeare at fhe time of appoiatiaent ia August, 1971. The Labour Coiut has aot proceeded correctly by taking photo copy of Kutuinb certificate as Grara Panchayat certi&cate. Tlie Labour Court has conipletely ignored the declaratioa ia attestation fonn which is final aad conclusive. For the reasons stated above, this does not call for aay iaterference wifh fhe finduigs and order passed by the Industrial Court dated 15.3.94. Accordfagly, the petition fails and is dKinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. AgMiho(ri Judge ^ -;(1 *> -:'- -'t-,