Employer in Relation to Management of Katras Area of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad v. Workman-shahdeo Das
Order
1. The employer is the appellant and assails the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Division Bench
Employer in Relation to Management of Katras Area of M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad v. Workman-Shahdeo Das
of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 25 of 2022, titled
as Workman-Shahdeo Das vs. Employer in relation to Management
of Katras Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, whereby
the appeal was allowed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside
and the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1,
Dhanbad1 dated 30.09.2020 was restored. By the said award, CGIT
had allowed the reference and permitted the change in date of birth
of the respondent from 18.09.1960 to 05.01.1972, apparently based
on a Transfer/School Leaving Certificate issued in 2015.
2. The respondent joined the services of the appellant with effect from
24.09.1990. In the service book, the date of birth was recorded
as 18.09.1960 corresponding to the age of 30 years. This age
was informed by the respondent himself at the time of joining. No
documentary proof of the date of birth was furnished by the respondent
and the same was recorded in the service book on his declaration.
A copy of the service book has been filed as Annexure P-1.
3. Apart from mentioning the date of birth as indicated above,the service
book further records that the respondent was married at the time
of joining and had four children. The relevant details are mentioned
in column ‘6’ titled ‘Details of Dependents’ which reads as follows:
Details of dependents
Name Relationship Date of Birth
Smt. Keshari Devi Wife 24 yrs
Chinta Kumari Daughter 6 yrs
Shanti Daughter 4 yrs
Nitu Kumari Daughter 2 yrs
Suman Daughter 6 months
Matal Das Father 60 years
4. During the course of arguments, a xerox copy of the service book
was also placed before us, which, apart from mentioning the above
1 In short, “CGIT”
1484 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
facts also bears the signatures of the respondent along with the
date 17.06.1992.
5. For 25 years, the respondent did not raise any objection with respect
to his date of birth. However, in October/November 2015, he applied
for correction of date of birth on the basis of Transfer Certificate/School
Leaving Certificate of Matriculation Examination issued on 05.11.2015,
requesting that his date of birth be corrected to 05.01.1972. The
appellant did not accept the request of the respondent. An industrial
dispute was raised by the respondent, which got referred to CGIT
after conciliation failed.
6. CGIT by its award dated 30.09.2020 directed correction of date of
birth from 1960 to 1972. The award was challenged by the appellant
by way of Writ Petition No. 2866 of 2021 before the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi. The Single Judge, vide judgment and order
dated 5/28.10.2021 after appreciating the facts of the case and also
the law on the point, allowed the writ petition and set aside the award
of CGIT. The Single Judge in particular relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others vs.
Shyam Kishore Singh 2, Factory Manager, Kirloskar Brothers
Limited vs. Laxman3, and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Premlal
Shrivas4 for arriving at the conclusion that applying for correction
of date of birth after a delay of 25 years almost towards the end of
service, is not to be permitted.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge, the respondent
preferred Letters Patent Appeal registered as LPA No. 25 of 2022.
By the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2023, the Division Bench
allowed the appeal and after setting aside the judgment of the Single
Judge, restored the award of CGIT.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the employer is in appeal before this Court.
9. We have heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Senior Advocate for
the appellant and Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. At the outset, we may note that we are in agreement
2 (2020) 3 SCC 411
3 (2020) 3 SCC 419
4 (2011) 9 SCC 664
Employer in Relation to Management of Katras Area of M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad v. Workman-Shahdeo Das
with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that a claim
for correction of date of birth after a delay of 25 years, ought not to
be entertained. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon
the judgments referred to above to arrive at the said conclusion.
10. The Division Bench apparently got swayed by the fact that in writ
jurisdiction, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the
finding of CGIT which was based upon appreciation of evidence.
Secondly, the School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate was
not challenged by the appellant, and since it was not disputed, CGIT
had rightly allowed the correction in the date of birth.
11. Moving aside from the above aspect, what is interesting is that the
respondent at the time of entering into service had given the details of
his dependants which included his wife aged 24 years, four daughters
aged 6 years, 4 years, 2 years and 6 months and also his father
aged 60 years. The name of the nominee in the service book was
mentioned as Smt. Keshari Devi, his wife. The service book was
annexed at Annexure P1 before this Court. The fact about the family
and dependants is not denied or disputed by the respondent. If the
claim of the respondent is accepted, he would be only 18 years of
age at the time of entering into the service. Difficult almost impossible
to have a wife aged 24 years and four daughters aged between 6
months to 6 years.
12. We also find that there is signature of the respondent on the service
book bearing date 17.06.1992. Once he had the knowledge, he
ought to have applied for correction in the very beginning. Further,
if the respondent had actually studied in matriculation and there was
a Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate of 1987, the same
ought to have been filed either at the time of joining or at any time
soon thereafter. The certificate relied upon has been issued only on
05.11.2015, nearly 28 years after leaving the school. CGIT as well
as the Division Bench ought to have given due consideration to this
aspect of the matter that the said certificate was issued in 2015 after
28 years of having left school. Furthermore, no evidence has been
placed on record to show that an incorrect date had been recorded
due to negligence of some other person. For all the reasons recorded
above, we are of the considered view that the Division Bench erred
in allowing the appeal.
1486 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
of the Division Bench is set aside, and the order of the learned Single
Judge is confirmed.
14. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†