D.K.SINHA,J. - (1.) THE Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of power conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had referred the following disputes to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (NO. 2), Dhanbad for adjudication vide their order No. L -20012(268)/92 -I.R.(Coal -I) dated 22nd September, 1993: Whether the action of the management of Golakdih Open Cast Project under Bastacolla Area of BCCL, P.O. Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad in not accepting the date of birth of Shri Shashanko Mishra as 1.7.34 as per service excerpts and refusal to refer the workman to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age in case of different dates of birth in Form 'B' is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'
(2.) IT appears that the aforesaid industrial dispute was raised at the instance of the workman due to his illegal superannuation with effect from 1st July, 1990. It was alleged that though in the service excerpts the date of birth of the workman was recorded as 1st July, 1934 but on the basis of a different date i.e. 1st July, 1930, the management illegally and arbitrarily superannuated him with effect from 1st July, 1990. In support of the claim the concerned workman relied on a document marked as Ext.W -2 and other evidence. It was the management who issued the identity card under the signature of the officials of the management in the year 1973 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1st July, 1934. Apart from the existence of identity card the concerned workman relied on the service excerpts issued by the management in the year 1987 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1st July, 1934. The management though raised the dispute relating to the age of the concerned workman but in case of some other workmen referred the dispute to the Apex Medical Board whose questions were not referred. The Tribunal directed the management to produce Form 'B' register which is considered as one of the authentic documents. A photocopy of From 'B' register was produced by the management which was marked as Ext.M -1. Inspite of specific order the original was not produced and the management failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to why they failed to produce the original Form 'B' register. From Sl.No. 647 of Form 'B' register of which photocopy was produced and marked as Ext.M -1, the learned Presiding Officer noticed that the figure '0' (Zero) appearing in the column was interpolated and the same has cast a serious doubt over the genesis of the date of birth of the workman. The Tribunal did not give any credit to such photocopy of the Form 'B' register. The reference was answered in favour of the workman who was also allowed consequential benefits of wages which was also affirmed by the learned single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 14th February, 2002. This Court on 1st March, 2003 allowed the management to produce the original Form 'B' register. A photocopy of which has now been produced. The photocopy of From 'B' register so enclosed with the memorandum of appeal (Annexure -1) does not bear any marking as Ext.M -1. From the original, as produced before the Court, it appears that the name of the workman, Shashanko Mishra was shown at Sl.No. 647. It further appears that actually no date of birth of the workman was written in the Form 'B' register when it was opened and thumb impression was taken but, subsequently by different ink and pen the date of birth as 1st July, 1930/46 was mentioned. It further appears that the photocopy of Form 'B' register which was produced by the management before this Court was not produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has cast a serious doubt over the genuineness of the same.
(3.) THIS Court is not in a position to understand: (a) as to why a different document relating to the age of the workman has been produced by the management before the Tribunal and another before this Court to make out a case in their favour; (b) the so called original Form 'B' register produced today does not bear any interpolation but the age recorded therein, appears to have been recorded later on by different ink and pen. As the photocopy of the said register was not even placed before the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to rely on such register.;