The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reasonable explanation for delay in raising a dispute and the entitlement of the workman to the correction of his date of birth in the service records.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The workman is aggrieved by the writ Court’s order dated 28th October 2021 passed in W.P.(L) No. 2866 of 2021 by which a challenge laid by the Management of Katras area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited at Dhanbad to the award dated 30th September 2020 has been accepted. The writ Court held that the workman did not made even a feeble attempt to explain the delay in raising a dispute as regards his date of birth.

2. The writ Court has held as under:

“After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das and learned counsel for the respondent – Workman, Mr. Sachi Nandan Das and the judgment relied by both the sides, it appears that the admitted facts are as follows:-

The workman Shahdeo Das was inducted into service on 18.09.1990 at the age of 30 years as mentioned in Form 'B'. Till 2015, workman Shahdeo Das has never raised any dispute nor filed any representation, though on 31.10.2015, he has relied upon the certificate and admit card issued by Bihar School Examination Board of the year 1987, showing his date of birth to be 05.01.1972, the respondent - Workman has denied his signature and LTI on Form 'B' during his cross-examination, but no application has been filed for correction by producing such documents by the respondent – Workman. In other words, if the workman Shahdeo Das has no knowledge that what was his date of birth/age mentioned in Form 'B', he has no occasion to file such application on 31.10.2015, meaning thereby before filing such application on 31.10.2015, the workman Shahdeo Das has every knowledge, that his age has been assessed to be 30 years in Form 'B' i.e. at the time of appointment, but during intermediate period, he was having such certificate, but he has not produced the same.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. Vs. Laxman reported in (2020) 3 SCC 419 as well as State of M.P. Vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664, the application filed by the respondent – workman after 25 years of his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, in the absence, when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay and as a matter of right, correction cannot be allowed at such belated stage or at the fag end of the service, as prayed by the workman – Shahdeo Das.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 01 of 2019 is set aside.

The writ petition is allowed.”

3. The workman pleaded that he was appointed as a Miner/Loader on 24th September 1990 at Bhalgora. Later on he was transferred to Salanpur Colliery under M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, BCCL) as SDL Operator. According to the workman, when the BCCL did not correct his date of birth in the service records he made an application on 31st October 2015 for correcting his date of birth. This application was given to the Project Officer of Salanpur Colliery and the General Manager/Project Officer of the BCCL at Katras. The workman submitted another application on 16th September 2016 because no action was taken by the BCCL on the first application, and finally raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Appropriate Government in exercise of the powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad the following issue for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Salanpur Colliery under Katras Area IV of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited in denial to record the date of birth of Sri Shadeo Das (personnel No. 02860252) as per the Admit Card of the Matriculation Examination is justified. If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to.”

4. Before the Tribunal, the workman examined himself as WW1 and a co-wor