R.K. Merathla, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the memo dated 4.6.1999 (Annexure-A), whereby it has been communicated that the Central Government has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication after consideration in terms of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The petitioner by a communication dated 16.10.1998 made to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) sought to raise an industrial dispute regarding one Shri Raj Kumar Dhari on the grounds that, the actual date of birth of the workman is 5.10.1953, as per the family horoscope; that the workman has been requesting the management since a very long time for the correction of his date of birth which has been mentioned wrongly as 32 years in the service excerpt; that the management neither made any correction nor referred him to the Apex Medical Board for the assessment of his age.

3. The management in its communication dated 23.12.1998 made to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, inter alia, contended that the date of birth/age of the workman is recorded as 32 years as on 17.10.1971 in statutory form B register of the colliery, and that in the year 1987 service excerpt containing the date of birth etc. were issued to all employees of the company including the workman Shri Raj Kumar Dhari, inviting objections, if any, but he did not make any objection about entries rather he put his LTI as a token of acceptance and returned the same to the management, and that there is no variation in the date of birth of the workman recorded in different records of the company and therefore, the question of sending him to Medical Board for assessment of age did not arise, and that there is no provision to accept the date of birth on the basis of Family Horoscope.

4. The conciliation having failed, the Assistant Labour Commissioner referred the records to the appropriate Government. The Government by its memo dated 4.6.1999 communicated its opinion formed under Section 12(5) of the Act to the effect that the workman is in employment since 1971, and as per report there is no discrepancy in the date of birth in the service records and, therefore, there is no justification for the demand of its correction or referring the matter to the Medical Board, at this stage and that the dispute is without any- basis. The transcription of the said reason is as follows :--

"Karmkar 1971 Se Karyarat Hai, Suchit Kiya Gaya Hai Ki Karmkar Ke Sewa Recardon Me Darj Janam Tareekh Me Koi Apwad Nahin Hai Atah Is Stage Per Sudhikaran Ki Mang Athwa Chikitsa Board Bheje Jane Ki Mang Ka Koi Auchttya Nahim hai. Vivad Niradhar Hai."

5. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the said memo dated 4.6.1999 and to direct the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court reported in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 271; Sharad Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 490. Learned counsel submitted, that the Government had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute itself and it was bound to refer the dispute for adjudication. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Government is limited to satisfying itself whether the dispute raised is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act, as has been held in Sharad Kumars case (supra).

7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the Central Government was perfectly justified in refusing to refer the dispute sought to be raised at this stage i.e. after about 11 years. After having accepted the entries in the service excerpts including the date of birth, in the year 1987 the dispute was sought to be raised in 1998 at the fag- end of the service when the workman was to attain the age of superannuation on 17.10.1999. H