IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the employee to establish the incorrectness of the date of birth recorded in the service records, and the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the scope of the reference made by the appropriate Government.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The workman who was employed under M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, 'BCCL') is aggrieved of the order dated 26th August 2019 passed in WPL No. 2172 of 2006 by which the writ Court has set-aside the Award made in his favour.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant who was employed since 1st January 1973 has claimed that his actual date of birth was 14th November 1949 which has been wrongly recorded in the management's records as 17th September 1941. He has put forth this claim on the basis of admit card of matriculation certificate and the school transfer certificate wherein his date of birth is recorded as 14th November 1949. According to him, the service records when his details were filled in he had raised objection and submitted a representation dated 22th July 1987. He has further pleaded that vide letter dated 12th February 1992 Mines Superintendent of Kuiya colliery has also taken some action on his representation but finally his date of birth was not corrected in the service records and, compelled thereof, he submitted representations dated 12th May 1995 and 27th November 1995. The Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union which espoused his cause also submitted representations on 2nd December 1996 and 2nd December 1997. On the other hand, the BCCL produced Form-B register which has been signed by the workman and has pleaded that the admit card and school transfer certificate are not genuine documents and were fabricated to raise the date of birth dispute so as to get extension of service.

3. The Central Government in exercise of powers under section 10(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:

THE SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union for the alteration of the date of birth of Sri Rahish Tiwary, U.G. Munshi of Kuiya Colliery as per the matriculation documents of Bihar School Examination Board is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

4. Before the Tribunal, the workman examined himself and tendered oral evidence in support of his claim whereas the management has examined D.D.Goswami MW1 as its witness to prove Form-B register vol. I of Kuiya colliery vide Ext. M-1, Identity Card register of Kuiya colliery vide Ext. M-2, original service excerpts vide Ext. M-3, superannuation letter vide Ext.-M-4, CMPF Form vide Ext. M-5 and Finger Print Report vide Ext. M-6 to demonstrate that the workman's real date of birth is 17th September 1941 and not 14th November 1949 as claimed by him. On the other hand, the workman has claimed that he could know about wrong recording of his date of birth when the management issued Identity Card to him and, accordingly, he lodged his objection. Later on, he submitted representations in the year 1987 when his service record was prepared. He laid in evidence the admit card of matriculation examination and school transfer certificate which were duly marked Exhibits. He has also produced his representations made to the management of BCCL.

5. The Tribunal has recorded that date of birth of the workman in Form-B register was recorded as 17th September 1941. However, the Tribunal raised the adverse burden against the management to establish the basis on which such date of birth of the workman was recorded. The Tribunal has further held that it was obligatory on the part of the management to accept school leaving certificate and the matriculation certificate as proof of date of birth of the concerned workman and, moreover, there was no impediment in sending the concerned workman to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age.

6. The writ Court referred to Implementation Instruction No. 76 which lays down the procedure for determination/verification of age of the employees to hold that Award dated 28th September 2005 was made ignoring the procedure prescribed for determination/verification of the age of the employees. The writ Court has held so on the ground that there was no discrepancy in the officia