The date of birth recorded in Form B is conclusive evidence to determine the age of the workman, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited in reviewing findings of fact reached by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 994 of 2022

1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 239 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter affidavit to the Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of respondents.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 994 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 239 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

6. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed in W.P. (L) No. 6007 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder while dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the Award dated 17.01.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, by which the reference has been answered against the writ petitioner-workman declining to make necessary correction in his date of birth.

7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, are as under:

The workman, namely, Maheshi Saw was appointed by the authority of a private coal company in the year 1963 in Angarpathra Colliery and Form 'B' register was filled up in which his date of birth has been recorded as 20.03.1946. In the Identity Card also the date of birth was recorded as 20.03.1946. It is further case of the workman that he had obtained license of Electrician from the Electricity Board, Bihar at Patna in which his date of birth was recorded as 20.03.1946. The concerned workman claims that date of birth of the elder brother, who is also employed in Angarpathra Colliery, is recorded as July, 1944 and therefore, the workman being the younger brother could not have born prior to his elder brother.

According to writ petitioner-appellant, though in all service excerpts his date of birth was recorded as 20.03.1946 but the respondent-management accepted his date of birth as September, 1938 stated to be recorded in Form B register of Angarpathra Colliery. Accordingly, he was served with letter of superannuation dated 05.05.1998 informing that he has to superannuate w.e.f. 15.09.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, he superannuated from service.

The dispute finally culminated into reference, being Reference Case No. 294 of 2000, for adjudication of the lis on the following reference:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL, West Mudidih Project, in retiring Sri Maheshi Shaw w.e.f. 15.09.1998 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? ”

The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties passed the Award dated 17th January, 2010 answering the reference against the workman holding that the action of the management of M/s BCCL, West Mudidih Project in retiring Maheshi Shaw w.e.f. 15.09.1998 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing W.P. (L) No. 6007 of 2010 but the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition refused to interfere with the award dated 17.01.2010, against which, the instant intracourt appeal has been filed.

8. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that date of birth of the elder brother of the writ petitioner, who was working in the same colliery, was mentioned as July, 1944 then how the date of birth of the younger brother, the petitioner, would be September, 1938.

According to learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner when the year of date of birth of the elder brother of the writ petitioner was mentioned