- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent- workman.
(2.) It appears that a reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 being reference case no. 86 of 1990 as to "whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in dismissing/stopping the workman Sri Samru Harijan, Miner-Loader of Industrial Colliery from 2.10.1995, although date of birth of workman recorded in different records is 10.5.1939 is justified If not, to what relief is the workman entitled -
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that it will appear from the finding given by the learned Tribunal that in spite of the fact that the claim was made by the workman that his date of birth is recorded as 10.5.1939, no evidence was led. Not even the workman examined himself as a witness in the reference. Although, the management examined as witness as M.W. No.2 and supported his case that the date of birth recorded in service excerpts are 20.10.1935 and accordingly, the workman had retired on attaining his age of superannuation on 20.10.1995. However, learned trial court without considering any document or evidence, only on the assertion of the respondent- workman that age was given as 10.5.1939 passed the judgment which is bad in law and fit to be quashed. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004 dated 5th January, 2004 in a case of CCL V/s. Kishori Mahto", in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " the controversy was not as to what was the actual age of the respondent but whether the service record had been interpolated or not" . This is an issue which ought to have been left to the Civil Court to decide". Hon'ble Court, accordingly, set aside the directive of the Division Bench and reaffirm the finding of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal.;