JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging an Award dated 7th June, 2016 passed by the 7th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata.

2. The substituted petitioners are the legal heirs of the original petitioner, who had died during the pendency of the writ application. The original petitioner in the aforesaid writ application claims to be an employee of the respondent no.3.

3. It is the original petitioner’s case that at the time of entry into the service, his date of birth was recorded as 1st January, 1956. It is stated that the original petitioner is an illiterate person. He all along proceeded on the premise that the aforesaid date of birth was recorded in his service book. Notwithstanding the aforesaid on 2nd April, 2008, the original petitioner’s service was terminated by way of superannuation, thereby curtailing his service career by six years.

4. The original petitioner being illiterate could not apprehend the ill motive on the part of the respondent no.3 as regards manipulation of his date of birth. Subsequently upon appreciating that his date of birth had been altered in the service book, the original petitioner with the help of the union lodged a complaint with the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal on 10th August, 2010. The conciliation having failed, the appropriate Government was, inter alia, pleased to refer the dispute for adjudication before the 7th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, by framing the following issues.

“1. Whether termination of service of Sri Kalicharan Kori by way of superannuation with effect from 02.04.2008 is justified?

2. To what relief, if any, is the worker entitled?”

5. Before the Tribunal the original petitioner filed his statement of claim/written statement and also adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The aforesaid proceeding was contested by the respondent no.3 by filing written statement and by adducing both oral and documentary evidence.

6. On contested hearing, the learned 7th Industrial Tribunal was, inter alia, pleased to hold that the original petitioner was lawfully superannuated and as such the reference was not maintainable and accordingly, decided the issue no.1 against the original petitioner. Consequentially the Tribunal refused to grant any relief in favour of the original petitioner. Being aggrieved, the instant writ application has been filed. During pendency of the writ application the original petitioner having died, his death has been recorded and in his place and stead, the present petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, have been substituted.

7. Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate representing the petitioners, submits that the date of birth of the original petitioner as recorded by the respondent no.3 is 1st January, 1956. He says that the respondent no.3 is covered by the provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act (in short, “the said Act”) and the original petitioner being otherwise entitled to the benefits under the said Act, was issued an Identity Card, in terms of Regulations 17 and 95A of the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulation, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as, “the said regulation”). Placing reliance on regulation 17 of the said regulation, he submits that the aforesaid Identity Card is a statutory document issued as per the said regulation.

8. By further drawing attention of this Court to a pension payment order, issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation which is appearing at page 42 of the writ application, he submits that in ordinary course, pension papers are processed through the employer and the date of birth disclosed in the pension record is based on service record maintained by the employer. By referring form 10C of the Employees’ Pension Schemes, 1995, it is submitted that the particulars in such form, are in ordinary course filled up by the employee and it is only on the basis of the certification of the employer, that the same are forwarded to the Employees Prov