Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order passed by opposite party No. 3, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Nati Imali, Varanasi. The dispute referred by the opposite party No. 1 was as follows:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 2. It appears that opposite party No. 4 entered into the service of the petitioner as sweeper sometime in the year 1957. He appears to have been retired from service with effect from 5-12-1983 on completing the age of 60 years on 6-2-1983. The order of retirement had been challenged and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that a service-book was prepared at the time the opposite No. 4 had entered into the service. The date of birth of opposite party No. 4 was recorded as 7-2-1923. He had thus completed the age of 60 years on 6-2-1983 and was liable to be superannuated with effect from that date. However, the service-book of opposite party No. 4 was lost. He was thus required to furnish his date of birth, by means of letter dated 22-3-1976. If other documents were not available, then it was provided, that he could furnish a certificate of the Civil Surgeon. Before the Civil Surgeon, whose certificate is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner had given out his age as 60 years. However, the Civil Surgeon had assessed his age as 40 years on 29-3-1976. In the meantime, it appears that the service-book of opposite party No. 4 was found as a result thereof an order of his retirement was passed on 5-12-1983 on the basis of the age recorded in the service book. 4. The case of opposite party No. 4 is that once the petitioner had required him to file medical certificate and the Civil Surgeon had assessed his age as 40 years in the year 1976, his date of birth should have been treated accordingly and he could not be retired taking his date of birth as 7-2-1923. The opposite party No. 3 had accepted the case of opposite party No. 4 and had given an award in his favour. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the age of retirement of the employees of petitioner is 60 years. It is also not disputed that according to the rules applicable, the date of birth as recorded in the High School certificate of the employee or in the equivalent examination undertaken by him or as recorded in the service-book of the employee is taken to be accepted Again it may be noted that it is not disputed that opposite party No. 4 is not High School pass nor is it disputed that the date of birth recorded in his service book was 7-2-1923 but his contention was that since the petitioner had required him to furnish the date of birth if otherwise not available, by means of a medical certificate of the Civil Surgeon and that evidence, namely, the medical certificate was submitted, the petitioner could not retire him on the basis of the age recorded in the service-book. 6. The opposite party No. 3 while deciding the case observed that the petitioner itself was not sure about the date of birth of opposite party No. 4, otherwise there was no occasion for it to require him to furnish the date of his birth. Once the medical certificate was furnished, the petitioner should have acted only in accordance with medical certificate or in case no action was required to be taken, some orders should have been passed accordingly but the record was not placed before the labour Court to indicate what orders were passed on the medical report of the Civil Surgeon furnished by opposite party No. 4. It has further been observed that the officers of the petitioner have not stated that the age as indicated in the certificate of the Civil Surgeon has been wrongly indicated or that the service-book of the opposite party No. 4 was traced out. In this connection, my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This is an affidavit filed before the Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner. In para 6 of the affidavit it has been very clearly mentioned that the service-book of opposite party No. 4 was found later on and he was retired since according to the service-book he had completed the age of 60 years. In the rejoinder affidavit filed before the Labour Court a copy of which has been filed here as Annexure-9, it was stated that at one stage, the service-book of opposite party No. 4 was not traceable but it was subsequently traced out. 7. In view of the facts stated in the earlier paragraph it cannot be said that the petitioner was not sure about the date of birth of opposite party No. 4 or it had any debts about the same. It is very well mentioned in the documents referred to above which were filed before the Labour Court that the service-book had been traced out. As a matter of fact in Annexure-3 itself which is the order of retirement, it is clearly mentioned that the service-book of opposite party No. 4 was traced out and he was being retired according to the date mentioned in the service-book. On the basis of the above facts, there can be no doubt about the fact that the service-book of opposite party No. 4 was lost but it was later on traced out. In this connection it may also be pointed out that the original service-book was placed before the Labour Court. There is an observation in the award that it (service-book) bears the date of birth of opposite party No. 4 as 7-2-1923. It has not been pleaded on behalf of opposite party No. 4 that the age was wrongly recorded in the service-book which was placed before the Labour Court or the said service book was not of opposite party No. 4. That being the position admittedly there exists a service book of opposite party No. 4, the genuineness of which was not challenged. It bears the date of his birth as 7-2-1923. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect of those who have not passed the High School examination, the date of birth as recorded in the service,-book shall be treated as correct and final. In this view' of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner acted illegally in any manner in passing the order of retirement of opposite party No. 4. On the other hand, the petitioner acted only in accordance with the rules. The Labour Court has erred in observing or holding that in view of the certificate of the Civil Surgeon, the rules had lost their value. When the service-book was available in which the date of birth of opposite party No. 4 is recorded, there was no option left for the petitioner but to act according to the rules in the matter of superannuation. If in certain circumstances, namely, when the service-book w-as not available, opposite party No. 4 was required to furnish medical certificate regarding his age, it would not mean that the rules regarding the date of birth of superannuation would lose their value. There can be no doubt that the service-book was traced out and it was produced before the Labour Court in original. The Labour Court was also in error in observing that the entries in the service-book are in English whereas the opposite party No. 4 is an uneducated person and his signatures are only in Hindi there it was observed that no importance can be attached to this entry in the service-book. There may be many employees who may not be knowing English language and may sign in Hindi although the entries in the service-book may be in English, or in many eases, it is quite possible that instead of signing, an employee may be able to put his thumb-impression alone. By this no inference could be drawn that the entries in the service-book were incorrect or they were to be ignored. It does not seem to be the case of opposite party No. 4 that the entries made in the service-book regarding the date of birth were wrong or that he had signed the service-book without knowing the contents of the service-book. 8. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the Labour Court has completely misdirected itself when it held that the petitioner was not sure about the date of birth of opposite party No. 4 and once the medical certificate was sought, the petitioner had no option but to act accordingly. As observed earlier, once the applicable rules are not disputed nor is it disputed that the service-book produced before the Labour Court in original did not contain correct entries, the order passed by the petitioner retiring the opposite party No. 4 could not be interfered with as it was absolutely in accordance with the rules. The petitioner has very well stated about the loss of the service-book as also about its being subsequently found. The observations made by the Labour Court to the contrary on this point are also against the material on record. 9. In view of the discussion held above, I find that the order passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition is quashed. 10. However, there would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;