K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for petitioner Corporation and Mr. Raval, learned advocate for respondent workman. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 23.03.2010 passed by learned Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 256 of 1999 whereby learned Tribunal held that the correct date of birth of the claimant is 06.11.1942 and not 06.11.1941 as recorded in the service record of the workman. Having reached the said findings of fact, learned Tribunal directed the Corporation to treat the retirement/superannuation of the claimant effective from 30.11.2000 instead of 30.11.1999 and to pay salary, allowances and pensionary benefits accordingly.

2. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the submission by learned advocate for petitioner-Corporation that the respondent-original claimant was employed by the Corporation with effect from 04.09.1972 and at the relevant time he was working as Storekeeper-cum-Accountant.

2.1 The Corporation had recorded 06.11.1941 as the date of birth of the claimant.

2.2 By considering the said date of birth as correct date of birth, the petitioner Corporation relieved the respondent- original claimant from service on the ground of superannuation in November, 1999.

2.3 It appears that somewhere in October, 1981, the Corporation has issued a Circular and instructed all employees of the Corporation that those employees who joined the service prior to 1981 and desire any correction in their service record, more particularly with regard to date of birth mentioned in the service record, may submit appropriate application for alteration in date of birth, within period of 6 months.

2.4 It appears that present respondent failed to submit application within time limit prescribed by the said Circular and subsequently somewhere in 1996, the claimant approached the Corporation with a request for appropriate correction/alteration in the birth date from 06.11.1941 to 06.11.1942.

2.5 The Corporation did not accept the request and conveyed its decision to the claimant vide communication dated 02.12.1996.

2.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Corporation and also feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation of relieving him from service in November, 1999 on the premise that he completed 58 years of age in November, 1999, the claimant raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to learned Tribunal.

2.7 After receiving evidence from both sides and after considering rival contentions, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of the claimant workman is 06.11.1942 and not the date which is mentioned in the record of the Corporation i.e. 06.11.1941.

2.8 In view of the said conclusion by learned Tribunal, the award came to be passed with above mentioned direction.

3. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for Corporation assailed the impugned award and submitted that though opportunity was granted to all employees vide general Circular issued by the Corporation to get any alteration/correction in the record carried out by making appropriate application, the respondent had not taken any step at the relevant time and that, therefore, his grievance and demand which was raised at belated stage was unjustified and that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the said vital aspect and committed error in passing the impugned award and impugned direction. Mr. Munshaw submitted that a specific Circular was issued in July, 1981 and 6 months time was granted to the employee for getting correction/alteration carried out in the service record. However, the claimant did not avail that opportunity and woke up as late as in 1996 i.e. few years before the date on which he was about to retire on superannuation as per existing record and that, therefore, such request was not considered by the Corporation. He submitted the decision of the Corporation could not have been considered illegal and arbitrary and should not have been