4,” ICATUHE AT JABALPUR, mp. (43 IN THL. HIGH wURT OF J'UD WwRIT.PmE.11.1;i.@Lmx&0_..-_f?}..L? . ,3 , _0.’r:.-ml~9u9.1, . COQSTITUTION OE gag“ ”"lTlON 'U@§&_MKTECLE 227 OF PE* Mukhtar Singh S/o Ujagar)§ingh Coke aged Greund) Oven about Bhilai G.M.G. 52 years S eel General Senior.Tech&icékn Plant Maint Bhilai ainance MEgaxx Quarter Bhilai Nagar, No.4-A, Bhilai Street District No.4 Sec$9r Durg,M.P. Ns.4, IJEHTlolxxER : -'- W RESPONDENTSg‘;i. - ‘ ‘ I ‘ S—teel Through Authority Managing of Director India Ltd. Bhilai S—teel,Plant Bhilai District Durg , Aw. / 2. Labour Ccurt, Through its P Utai Read Burg, Durg , Nb? . residing Officer District Industrial Court 9f M.F. -16 Bench H.I°G. at Raicur‘) Shankar Nagar Krishna Raipur, District Raipur, M.?. x ‘g. BETA—1L3 OF FEEETIQNER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,‘ BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No 3644 OF 199i Mumm- Singh m ' Vcrsus Stu! Authorifyaf Inida Limifod and cfhurs’ ' OkDER Post for 08—08-2005 $1!» “{\%\ ‘ V Sd/E (j ‘ A?“ I ‘ ‘ Siam? Kama? §in§3a / ‘ ' I [ , ‘ a ‘ / é \r W ’ gEi§g€ . j; ; J /' *\] «Vb _ _ g Jam'vm HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILAsPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3644 OF 1997 Mum» smh Versus smuAmnomyof Inwaumadmml ‘/yA: Appearance Shrl HB Agrawal Sr Advocate wifh 5hr: Pankn‘g Agmwal counsel for The petitioner DE. MK. Shukla, Sr. Advoca1'e wi1h Shri Shniiendm Shukh. counsel for responden‘r No. 1 ' None for respondems No. 2 & 3 O R D E R (08-08-2005) suns: Km 5mm. ,1 By vway of this wrif pe'rifion; filed under Arfide ' 226/227 of 1'he Constitution of India, the petitioner has winged the iegaliw of me order dmd 28.06499? passed in appeal case no. 247/MPIR/96 by the member Judge of Industrial Court Mndhya Praded'l, Bench, Raipur. The Industrial Court, reversed the order passed by the lahour com, burg on 15.04.1996 in m9 No. 115/MPIR/92 and dismissed the claim of the petitioner regarding carnation of date of birth in his service records. (2) The brief facts are that the petitioner, who was in employm+ cf respondaw No. 1, filed en dpeigedfaen under Sec‘l'ions 31 (3) I'aad wi'rh 61 of MPIR Act befone fhe Labour Cour-f, Durg sa aking a declaration ‘rho'r 'rhe alfem'rion in his date of birth in service records from 20.07.1944 fo 01.07.1939 be dechred illegal md inopemfive md The dale”) of birfh of the petitioner should be held as 20.07.1944 having a right to continue in employment upto 31.07.2002. (3) The we of the petitioner is that he entered in to employment of rewondent No. 1 on 20.07.1964. He declared his age as 20 years on 20.07.1964. Accordingly his date of birth was assessed as 20.07.1944 and the same was recorded in his service book. However, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth has been changed from 20.07.1944 to 01.07.1939. On enquiry, he could come to know that this date of birth, as 01.07.1939, was computed on the basis of an entry in the Employment Index Card. The petitioner made efforts with the compmy to correct his date of birth but the same was not done, therefore, the aforesaid case ms filed before the Labour Court. (4) In the written statement of respondent No. 1, the facts stated by the petitioner were denied. It was contended by them that no alteration or change in the date of birth has been made by the Company and in fact, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 01.07.1939 from the very beginning of his service on the basis of declaration of the petitioner in the Employment Index Card according to which he had declared himself to be aged about 20 years as on 01.07.1959 and his date of birth cmnot be correct as 20.07.1944 as is claimed by the petitioner. ..J3 ’ (5) The labour Couri' af‘rer framing fh¢ issues in ‘rhis mama directed The parties 1’0 lend Their evidence and affer- faking evidence of the parties, recorded g finding fha'i' fhe correc'r date of bir‘l'h of fine pefifioner is 20.07.1944. The finding of the Labour Court was based upon the oral evidence of the petitioner and a certificate of the Gram Panchayat issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1990 filed as Ex.-P/1. The lnhour Court also recorded a finding that the entries of Employment Index Card, proved as Ex—D/l by the respondent No. 1, were correct. These entries show that the petitioner had declared his age as 20 years on 01.07. 1959. 0n appreciation of evidence the Labour Court held that in fact, it was a declaration of his age as on 24.07.1964 and not on 01.07.1959. The Labour Court determined that there was no reasan with the petitioner to declare his age on any back date, when he was entering in service in 1964 and the Index Card was being prepared in the year 1964. On these grounds, the l nhour Court disbelieved the contents of the Index Card Ex.- D/1 and upheld the contention of the petitioner that in fact, he had stated his age as 20 years on the date of preparation of Index Card md not on 01.07.1959. The contents of certificate Ex.-P/1 were also held to be correct. (6) Against the aforesaid order dated 15.04.1996 passed by the Labour Court, the employer filed an appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court set aside the findings of the Labour Court and dismissed the claim of the petitioner holding that the Labour, Court erred in law by relying on the entries of certificate Ex.-P/1 without getting it proved by the petitioner in accordance with law. It was further held that the go; __4_- _ entries of the Employment Index Card (Ex 0/1) were wrongly I disbelieved by the l abour Court and the finding is perverse In _ fact the petitioner could not establish that his actual date of ; birth is 20 O7 1944 aid it was altered by, the mondent as l 01.7.1939. It is against this appellate order of Industrial Court, 'Hwe presen? wri'r pdi'rion has been filed. ‘r (7) Learned counsel for the petitioner aibmits that the Indusmai Courf was no? Jusflfled m revcrsmg the order md fmdmg recorded by fhe Labour Courf based on me oral ewdenae of the pe'rmoner and fhe oer'rifloa'ra of Panchaya‘t filed by him as Annexurz-P/I He furfher submrrs 1haf fhe enfry of Ex -D/1 daould no? have been believed by fhe Industrial Courf and the date of birth of fhe peti'honer daould have been he'd as 20 07 1944 On the ofher hand horned counsel for wondent No. 1 wbnufs rho-t the petitioner raised this dispute regarding his date of birth at the fag end the claims of the petitioner (8) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at » length and have also perused the records of the writ petition (9) ‘ It has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of lla‘ fd W001 M 97 that ‘the power under Article 227 wi be exercised to interfere with orders of lower courts and Tribunals only in cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant Violation of fundament principles of law or justice where in the absence of intervention by the High Court gmve in3usttce would remain unchecked and uncorrected' The Apex \ of his serVice and the Industrial Court has rightly repcted Court has further held that the findings of facts cm be set aside by the High Court under Articlc 227, if findings are based : on no evidence at all or are so perverse ’ \ that no :reqsonabie person could come to such conclusion. If has also f been he'd in the mamr ofWm gageshs Hankm( )byLk‘ Wdhgowjj 56C M177 tho? m a pe‘rmon under Ar‘hcls 227 of fhe :Consmu‘hon, fhc High Court has fo see whether 1he Lower Courf or 'rhe Tribunal has jurisdicfion 1'0 deal wifh fhe mailer and if so, whe'rher 'lhe impugned order is vifiaied by procedural irregularity: in ofher words, 'lhe Courl' is concerned no? wifh lhe decision buf wiih ihe decision making: ‘process. (10) If we examim ihe case of 'lhe pefifioner, ‘rr would appear 1haf fhe pe'l'i'iioner had initially chimed 1ha‘l' his dafe of birfh en'l'ered in his service records as 20.07.1944 has been wrongly altered or changed as 01.07.1939. None of fhe documenfshave been filed before ‘lhe Tribunal fo show 1ha'l' in fact any $1d1 alfera‘rion was made by the Company The first document of enhance of servme of fhe pefrhoner is the Employment Index Card which has been filed as Annexure-P/é This document was also filed before the Tribunal as Ex.-D/1. If we look into the contents of this document, it would appear that in column No. 10 of this dowment an entry regarding the age on 01.07.1959 has been made, Ii has been entered am this column No. 107 that the age of the petitioner on 01.07.1959 was 20 years. The petitioner has not di$uted this entry but he has raised a plea that in facl, this declaration was given by him thinking that he had to declare his age on 20.07.1964 and not on 01.07.1959. This contention of the i’a _6- pefifioner can not be accepfcd. Ex.-D/1 is ‘fhe documenf whid1 Confains the complefc details of fhc employez. This document bears 1m fhumb impression and fingar impressions of fhe pefinoner. It is in prescribzd proforma of fhc Company in which column No. 10 deals wi'lh 1h: declara‘rion regarding fhe ‘ date of bir‘l‘h of fhe employee or his age on 01.07.1959. If is in ' fhis column fha'l' 1he age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 20 years. The petitioner has not disputed the contents of this document. kather he claims that he gave this declaration of 20 years thinking that he had to tell his age as on 20.07.1964. If we examine the evidence of the petitioner, it would appear that he has not supported this fact even by hisown oral evidence. He has only said that on 20.07.1964. he got his age mentioned as 20 years in column No. 10 of the Employment Index Card. He has not stated that it was his age on 20.07.1964. On the basis of this evidence only, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the petitioner holding that he had told his age as 20 years on 20.7.1964 and not on 01.07.1959. In these facts and cirwmstmces of the case, if the Industrial Court has reversed the finding of the Labour Court, then it could not be said that the some is erroneous. Rather it appears that the finding of the Labour Court was totally perverse and the Industrial Court has rightly‘reversed the m. (11) Now coming to the contents of the birth certificate (Annexure-P/Z);it would appear that the same was isaied in the year 1990. This dowment has not been proved in ./////\ accordance with law. Moreover, this document does not disclose as to what are the provisions under which this w g; cerfifianfe has been imdmhe'her fhis cer‘rificufa has been issued under- any sinfu‘rory provfsion or The sum has bun ksued on ‘rhc request of 11w pefifioner by 6mm Pmchyn'r. In fact, whether- fhe ceriificufe subsequemly obtaincd by the pe'rifioner in 1h: year 1990 dwould be accepted and 1he da1e of birth entered fherein should be taken as conclusive is essemially a question of fact The determination of fhe question requires detail enquiry. The Apex Court has held in the matter #6,“, Bhamf Com Cog] Lfd, West Bum! v‘ 5% Dashed and other: h AIR. 2001 56; page 72. Pm-Ié that some of the relevant aspects to be considered in such a matter is whether aich certificates have been issued by an authority competent to issue the same under any statute or statutory rules; whether the authority isaiing the certificate is required under the statute or rules to enquire into the question of the date of birth of the person before ‘iswing the certificate and on sich inquiry the authority has found the date of birth to be as entered in the certificate or the entry has been made merely on the disclowre made by the holder of the certificate. In the present s also, all these facts have not been clarified by the Labour Court md the Labour Court held this certificate to be proved only on evidence of the petitioner. The Industrial Court hasrightly not accepted the contents of this document (Ex.-P/1) to be conclusive for holding the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.07.1944 and on these grounds also, the finding of the Labour Court has rightly been reversed. (12) On the basis of the foregoing discussion md also on the basis of the material placed before this Court, I do not feel 'rl'm' ‘rhe finding recorded by the Industrial Court is ci'rhar p¢rv¢rs: or is based upon no ma'rerinl an record wormiing inferferenoe by inis Cour? under Ar‘riclg 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The pctifion has no meri'i's and inc same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstmces, there d'mll be no order as 1'0 costs. ‘ i Samii Kimmy §imaa ‘ 1 Sd/n i ‘ Jadgo i Wa-zoos /