- (1.) - Special leave granted.
(2.) Appellant was a workman under the respondent and in his service record his date of birth was initially shown as 1-7-1930 and later changed to 23-10-1933. On the basis of the original entry, he was about to be superannuated. It is not in dispute that under the Respondent's Standing Orders, a workman is liable to by superannuated at the age of 58. On 7-1-1988, quite some time before the apprehended superannuation was to work out, the appellant approached the Civil Court by filing the suit on 7-1-1988 where he prayed for correction of his date of birth and asked for injunction against superannuation and claimed other ancillary reliefs. The employer joined issue, inter alia, on the question of the Civil Court's jurisdiction to maintain an action of this type. Ultimately in Second Appeal, as the stand of the employer has been upheld; this civil appeal has been carried by the employee questioning the law of the High Court.
(3.) Law is settled that matters which come within the purview of S. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure are maintainable in the Civil Court. Section 9 provides: "The courts shall subject to the provisions herein contained, have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." The scope of Section 9 has been the subject matter of a long series of decisions and it is dfifficult to contend and Mr. Ashwini Kumar has, therefore, fairly accepted the position that a suit for correcting the date of birth in the record would be maintainable. In fact, asking for a correction of that type may be for various purposes and need not necessarily be confined to the question of claiming the relief available under the Industrial Disputes Act.;