- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W(S) No. 2433 of 2001 dismissing the writ application on the ground that there were serious disputed questions of fact relating to the entries in different records, maintained by the respondents, with regard to the date of birth of the writ petitioner. 2. Appearing in support of the appellant, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that there was apparent variance in the entries in the Form -B register aintained by the Company and the Identity Card, as issued to the petitioner by the Company. While in the Form B register the date of birth has been shown as 15th of July, 1941, in the Identity Card which had been issued to the petitioner, the date was supposedly mentioned as 15th July, 1948. According to Mrs. Kumar, the said two entries were sufficient for a dispute to have been raised, which required the matter to be referred to a Medical Board for determination of the correct age of the petitioner.
(2.) OPPOSING the appeal, Mr. Sen referred to and relied on the National Coal Wage Agreement -III, Implementation Instruction No. 76 which relates to the procedure for determination and/or verification of the age of the employees. Referring to Clause -B, Mr. Sen pointed out that reference to the Medical Board could actually be made in certain situations as recorded in Sub -clause (ii) of Clause B and that in the instant case, since Form B register was available, the same will determine the age of the petitioner. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the instruction referred to above and we are satisfied that reference to a Medical Board cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the appellant -petitioner. Such reference can be made by the Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case and not otherwise. Apart from the above, the appellant -petitioner has raised a dispute relating to his date of birth at the fag end of his career, which practice has also been deprecated by the Honble Supreme Court.
(3.) IN such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.;