The main legal point established in the judgment is that the declaration of age by a workman at the time of joining, in the absence of documentary proof, can be considered the sole basis for reckoning the age and retirement. The judgment also emphasizes that correction of date of birth at the fag end of service should be discouraged, and adverse inferences should be carefully considered in view of the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

The workman claiming that he was forced to superannuate on 31st March 2002 about 4 years prior to the actual date of retirement from service raised a dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court at Bokaro.

2. The Labour Court at Bokaro answered the reference against the workman and made an award dated 28th October 2005 holding that retirement of the workman from service on 31st March 2002 was justified.

3. In W.P(L) No.2969 of 2006, challenge laid by the workman to the award dated 28th October 2005 failed and therefore the present Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the workman (now, represented through his legal heirs).

4. Briefly stated, the workman Md. Khalil joined as Welder under the Management of Steel Authority of India Limited (in short, “Management”) on 21st March 1974. According to the workman, at the time of entering into the service he was asked to undergo a medical fitness test and his age as on 12th March 1974 was assessed around twenty-seven and a half years. After about twenty years of service, he came to know that his date of birth was changed to 21st March 1942 behind his back and therefore made several representations including dated 15th November 1993 and 25th June 1996 to the Management for correcting his date of birth to be 25th May 1946. The workman pleaded that Sri B. Sharma, the then Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, accepted his representation for correction in his date of birth but a corresponding entry was not made in his Personal Data Form. Later on, the Bokaro Ispat Kamgar Union espousing his cause took up the matter with the Management but, in the meantime, he received a separation order vide letter dated 17th January 2002 and he was made to retire from service w.e.f. 31st March 2002. Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised and the appropriate Government referred the same for adjudication by the Labour Court at Bokaro. The reference made by the appropriate Government was in the following terms:

“Whether the retirement from services of Md. Khalil, Welder, Staff No.314790 from dated 31.3.2002 as per corrigendum notification (dt.20.10.2003 text of reference) by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

5. The workman tendered evidence to the effect that his age as assessed around twenty-seven and a half years during medical examination corresponds to the date of birth declared by him at every stage. According to the workman, the Management accepted his date of birth on 25th May 1946 which is reflected in various documents of the Management. The workman in support of his stand that he was pre-maturely retired from service produced several documents including the Medical Book, Interview Letter, LTC/LLTC Forms, Medical Examination Report etc.

6. Before the Labour Court, the Management examined Mr. Braj Nandan Singh as MW1 who was working as Assistant Manager at Bokaro Steel Plant of SAIL and laid in evidence some documents such as Personal Data Form of the workman, application of the workman, reply of the Management etc. MW1 stated that medical examination of an employee is conducted to ascertain whether he is physically fit to join the post and, that, age assessment in the medical examination test cannot be considered a proof of age. He further deposed that Md. Khalil at the time of his joining himself filled up the Attestation Form and Personal Data Form disclosing his age 32 years and, on that basis, his date of retirement was fixed by the Management. This witness further stated that the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager illegally and without any authority entered the date of birth of Md. Khalil as 25th May 1946, which was detected after an inquiry and therefore corrected with red ink by the Management.

7. The Labour Court came to a conclusion that the declaration by the workman in his Personal Data Form that his age at the time of joining was 32 years was rightly taken by the Management a