Chandrashekhar,J. - (1.) Seeking quashing of the award dated 22.09.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 in Reference No. 84 of 1992, the writ petition has been filed by the wife of the deceased employee namely, late Suraj Lal.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the deceased employee was employed in the respondent B.C.C.L on 14.08.1961 and his actual date of birth is 01.03.1935, he was retired from service with effect from 19.07.1990 illegally. In support of his contention the learned counsel refers to Annexure-A, copy of Form B in which the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner is recorded as 01.03.1935. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since from the record of the employer itself it appears that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner is 01.03.1935, he could not have been retired from service prior to 30.06.1995. It is further submitted that in the service excerpt the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner has been corrected unilaterally by the employer from 01.03.1935 to 01.03.1930 and since no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the employee, such correction made by the employer cannot be validated.
(3.) Percontra, Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent B.C.C.L has submitted that the employee namely, late Suraj Lal himself has filled in his date of birth as 01.03.1930 and the interpolation as alleged by the husband of the petitioner was done at the instance of the husband of the petitioner himself. Moreover, after superannuation from service, any dispute with respect to date of birth cannot be agitated by the employee.;