Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 49
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai, J.
Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited
Versus
Abdul Wahab
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 566 of 1961 ; 671 of 1961 ;
Decided On : APRIL 17, 1965
A school Admission Register entry is not conclusive evidence of a person's date of birth and must be supported by other evidence.
Headnote:
SERVICE TERMINATION - WRONGFUL TERMINATION - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - EVIDENCE OF AGE - ADMISSIBILITY OF SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER ENTRY - SECTION 35 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company, was made to retire before reaching the age of superannuation, which was 60 years according to the company's rules. The plaintiff claimed that he was born on December 5, 1900, and thus would have reached the age of superannuation on December 5, 1960, but the defendant claimed that he was born in 1895. The plaintiff produced a school leaving certificate and an entry in the school's Admission Register as evidence of his date of birth, while the defendant produced a staff card showing the plaintiff's date of birth as 1895.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was born on December 5, 1900, as the school Admission Register entry was not conclusive evidence and the plaintiff's own testimony was not reliable. The court also found that the staff card was a genuine document and that the plaintiff's date of birth as recorded in the staff card was correct.
Issues: 1. Whether the school Admission Register entry was admissible as evidence of the plaintiff's date of birth under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. Whether the plaintiff had proved that he was born on December 5, 1900. 3. Whether the defendant was justified in terminating the plaintiff's employment before he reached the age of superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the school Admission Register entry was not conclusive evidence of the plaintiff's date of birth as it was not supported by any other evidence and the plaintiff's own testimony was not reliable. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was born on December 5, 1900, as the school Admission Register entry was not conclusive evidence and the plaintiff's own testimony was not reliable. 3. The court held that the defendant was justified in terminating the plaintiff's employment before he reached the age of superannuation as the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was born on December 5, 1900.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
K.Sahai, J.
1. These two appeals have been taken up together because they arise out of one common judgment of the trial Court, there having been two appeals, however, before the Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeals. Mr. Ali Ahmad appeared on behalf of the respondent in Second Appeal No. 671 of 1961 at one stage; but he had come and informed me that he has no further instruction from the respondent. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent in the other appeal at any stage. This judgment will govern both the appeals.
2. Both the appeals have been filed by the defendant, Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., which will hereafter be referred to as the Tata Company. The suit, out of which they arise, was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that his service as an employee of the Tata Company was wrongfully terminated by the company at an age earlier than sixty years, which, according to the rules of the company, is the age of superannuation, and for damages amounting to Rs 200 for one month.
3. The Munsif, who tried the suit, granted the declaration prayed for by the plaintiff; but he gave a decree for damages to the extent of only Rs. 87 The plaintiff filed an appeal against the reduction in the amount of damages claimed for by him, and the defendant filed another appeal against the grant of declaration as prayed for by the plaintiff. Both the appeals were placed for disposal before the Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur. He allowed the plaintiffs appeal, and dismissed the defendants appeal. The result was that he decreed the plaintiffs suit in full. The defendant has filed the present appeals against the decrees prepared in the two appeals before the Subordinate Judge.
4. Shortly stated, the plaintiffs case is that he was an employee of the defendant company that he was born on the 5th December. 1900, so that he would have attained the age of superannuation at sixty years on the 5tb December 1960, and that he was wrongfully made to retire on the 30th April, 1958
5. There is difference between the parties on certain facts; but the admitted position is that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, and that he was made to retire on the 30th April, 1958 According to the defendant, however, the plaintiff was born in 1895 and not on the 5th December, 1900, as alleged by him.
6. It is also an admitted position that the defendant gave an extension of service for one year to the plaintiff with effect from the 1st October 1956 The plaintiff then contested his age as mentioned in the records of the defendant, and filed a school leaving certificate in support of his plea that he was born on the 5th December, 1900 The defendant sent the certificate for verification to the Inspector of Schools at Pratapgarh but it was lost. The plaintiff then obtained a duplicate (exhibit 1) of the certificate; but, before he could make it over to the authorities concerned of the defendant company, he was made to retire from the 30th April, 1958. It is also not disputed that, according to the rules of the Tata Company employees superannuate at the age of sixty years.
7. The plaintiff has put in evidence in the suit the school leaving certificate (exhibit 1). He has also examined the Headmaster of the school (P. W. 1), who has stated that he issued the certificate on the basis of the entry (exhibit 2) in the Admission Register The entry purports to have been made in 1906. P. W. 1 has stated that he has been working in the school in question from 1950, and he admits that he cannot give the basis on which the entry was made. He further admits that the Admission Register does not bear any seal, nor does is bear the signature of the Headmaster of the school. He adds, however, that it was not prevalent in the days in which the register containing the entry (exhibit 2) was being maintained to put seals in the registers. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the entry (exhibit 2) and the school leaving certificate (exhibit 1) are gen
