The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can only be challenged if it suffers from perversity or there is a jurisdictional error.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 4899 of 2020:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 186 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 186 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

6. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.

L.P.A. No. 918 of 2019:

7. This intra court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are directed against the order/judgment dated 18.05.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No. 6127 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the award dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No.10 of 2007 by which the reference has been decided against the appellant-writ petitioner, has been refused to be interfered with.

8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions required to be enumerated, read as under:

The case of the concerned workman/writ petitioner as per the written statement is that he was appointed as a casual labour in Indian Tube Company in the year 1975 and he was made permanent on 01.11.1981. At the time of employment, the workman could not produce any document/certificate regarding his date of birth.

As per the procedure, his age was assessed by the Medical Officer of Indian Tube Company as 31 years on 10.11.1980, accordingly, his date of birth was recorded as 10.11.1949. The workman had also put his thumb impression on the age declaration document by declaring that he will not challenge his recorded age in future.

Subsequently, after the lapse of some years, the workman requested the management for change of his date of birth which was turned down by the management.

It is the case of the workman that, after the merger of the respondent company with Tisco Ltd. used to work in Public Health Department and after formation of JUSCO Ltd., the said department got transferred under JUSCO Ltd. and the said workman worked under the JUSCO Ltd.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the he is an illiterate person and therefore, could not produce any certificate about his date of birth, i.e., 10.11.1956 at the time of employment but had given verbal information and one affidavit was sworn by his mother to the management but the management did not record his correct date of birth in the company.

After coming to know that his date of birth has incorrectly been recorded in the records of the company, the writ petitioner approached the respondent by making representation but the respondent has paid no heed to such representation.

Thereafter, the writ petitioner has himself got examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Jamshedpur who after carrying out physical, dental and Radiological examination has assessed the age of the workman as 45 years on 06.06.2002 and he has also got birth certificate issued by the NAC, Jamshedpur dated 12.05.2001.

9. Thus, it is evident from the fact enumerated in the pleading as referred above that the writ petitioner-workman has raised the dispute about his date of birth and the matter travelled to the Conciliating Officer for conciliation but the conciliation having been failed, the matter was referred for adjudication by making reference by the Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 10(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947.

10. The tribunal has considered the rival submissions/documents produced before it and thereafter has answered the reference against the writ petitioner holding his date of birth to be