( 1 ) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the kymore Cement Mazdoor Congress, Kymore, for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision dated 24 August 1964 of the Industrial Court setting aside an order of the Labour Court, Jabalpur, made in circumstances to be presently stated, directing the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. , Kymore (hereinafter referred to as the Company) to reinstate in its service one Hafiz Mohammad, who was employed as a blacksmith in the workshop department and awarding him Rs. 1,000 as compensation.

( 2 ) ON 31 July 1961 the Company intimated to Hafiz Mohammad that according to the Company's records he would be attaining the age of 60 years on 1 January 1962 and according to the sixty years' rule of retirement, in force in the company enforceable on him he would be retired from that date. Some time after receiving this intimation, Hafiz Mohammad informed the Company that according to an entry in the Register of Births maintained by the authorities in Basonda village of the Banda district, Uttar Pradesh, he was born on 11 February 1906 and accordingly his age should be corrected in the Company's records and he should not be retired from 1 January 1962. This prayer of Hafiz Mohammad was rejected by the Company, and accordingly he was retired on 1 January 1962. Thereafter, the petitioner-Congress approached the Company in the manner prescribed in section 31 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960, for the correction of the company's record in regard to Hafiz Mohammad's age and for his retention in the service of the Company. As the approach to the employer did not yield any result the petitioner moved the Labour Court in the matter.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge of the Labour-Court held that the Company was not justified in the retiring of Hafiz Mohammad on the basis of his age determined after medical examination for the purpose of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, that there was no evidence before him to show that for the purpose , of the scheme under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the medical examination of Hafiz mohammad 'was pointedly directed towards ascertaining his age'. The Labour court further held that the certified copy of the entry from the Birth Register maintained for the village Basonda, produced by Hafiz Mohammad, indicated that he was born on 11 February 1906; that under Section 79 of the Evidence Act it must be presumed that the certified copy was genuine; and that if the Company doubted the genuineness of the certified copy or of the competence of the authority which issued it then the Company could have proved by summoning the original Birth Register that the copy was not correct. In this view the Labour Judge found that Hafiz; Mohammad was born on 11 February 1906, and that consequently his retirement from service from 1 January 1962 was invalid. The labour Court also thought that the circumstances of the case required that Hafiz mohammad should be paid Rs. 1,000 by way of compensation.

( 4 ) THE Compapy then preferred a revision petition under Section 66 of the Act to the Industrial Court against the decision of the Labour Court, Jabalpur. The industrial Court held that when the Employees Provident Fund Scheme was made applicable to the Company a notice was given by the Company to all their employees asking them to furnish their dates of birth and identification marks for the purpose of facilitating the completion of the declaration and nomination forms for the pur- pose of the scheme; that according to that notice, if an employee was not able to furnish his date of birth or an identification mark, he was to be examined by the Medical Officer for the determination of such identification marks, etc. The Industrial Court also held that Hafiz Mohammad could not furnish his date of birth for the purpose of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme; that he was therefore medically examined and at that time his age was det