- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 26.09.2001 delivered in Reference Case No. 143/1993 (Annexure-4) by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the respondents-Management rejecting the claim of the petitioner that his death of birth should have been treated as 15.01.1939 in stead of 10.02.1933. The reference is quoted here in below: Whether the action of the management in recording the date of birth of Shri Nageshwar Prasad, T.R. Miner as on 10.03.1933 in his service records is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed in the month of February, 1964 under N.C.D.C. Ltd. at Giridih, while he was working in Shaft Mines in 1965 and his actual date of birth was recorded as 15.01.1939, which is evident from the School Leaving Certificate annexed as Annexure-1 dated 25.06.1956. It is further contention of the petitioner that he had no knowledge that his death of birth had been recorded as 10th February, 1933 in stead of 15th January, 1939. However, he submits that after coming into force of the circular dated 25.04.1986 in terms of N.C.WA.III a procedure for determination and verification of the age of the employee was laid down according to which the case of the petitioner should have been determined by referring to the Medical Board. According to the petitioner, he made an application dated 12.06.1987 annexed as Annexure-2 for correction of his death of birth and thereafter again on 25.12.1990, but in vain. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately rejected on 14.06.1992, whereafter he approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 3429/1992 (R) in which vide order dated 26.07.1993, the concerned respondents were directed to refer the matter under section 10(1) of the I.D. Act for reference before the Industrial Tribunal. The reference was made vide notification issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India dated 17/19.8.1993, which is quoted hereinabove. It is stated that he was forced to retire w.e.f. from 10.02.1993 treating his date of birth as 10.2.1933. By assailing the impugned award, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the different circulars and school leaving certificate apart from the other documents which conclusively show that the date of birth of the petitioner was 15.01.1939. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also failed to take into account that the respondents employer was required to send the case for determination of the age of the petitioner to the Apex Medical Board under circulars issued in terms of N.C.W.A-3. As such the impugned award refusing his claim and answering reference in favour of the employer, is bad in law and the petitioner should be granted all consequential benefits treating him to have retired on 15.01.1999 according to his real date of birth which has been refused by the Tribunal as well.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also contended that the document as Exhibit-M-2 produced by the Management in the Labour Court, has wrongly been relied upon by the Tribunal as the same are not authentic document and there is no signature of any employer.;