1996 PLP 539 (PLC(CS))

A. Hafiz for Respondents. Date. of hearing: 28th March, 1996. The appellant was appointed as helper by M/s. Park Davis & Company on 2‑9‑1963. The appellant gave his age as 25 years and six months. His date of birth was entered in the record as the year 1933. He was, accordingly, retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years with effect from 31‑12‑1993. This date of birth was also relies upon for his Provident Fund, his Dues and it was also entered in his personal Data, EOBI Contribution Card, Birth Certificate etc. He was informed by a letter about his retirement on 30‑12‑1993. He signed on 20‑1‑1994 the Final Settlement Receipt in which it was also written that he had no further claim against the Company. According to Settlement dated 11‑6‑1975 the age of retirement was fixed at 58 years and it was also agreed that the age in the personal Files of the workers would be considered as the basis for determining the age of retirement. In the next Settlement, dated 4‑4‑1979, the age of retirement was extended to 60 years. When the worker was informed about his retirement he claimed that his date of birth was 2‑3‑1938 according to his National Identity Card and the‑ Birth Certificate.

2. The learned lower Court did not place reliance on the age entered in the National Identity Card as that would be the age provided by the worker himself and the age in the Birth Certificate, which was considered not to be the genuine and authenticated certificate.

3. Since the appellant had not disputed his age up to the time of retirement he was not allowed to have the date altered on the basis of the above document.

4. It has become a common grievance for the workmen in every Department to dispute their date of birth mentioned by them at time of their employment or as ascertained by the Medical Officer on clinical data, by producing fake documents purporting to be Birth Certificate by Municipal Committees or Local Bodies. They also insist that the age entered in the National Identity Card may be relied upon. It is common knowledge that regular entries of birth and deaths are not maintained in the Local Bodies record and as for the Identity Card a single person can easily obtain an Identity Card with date of birth of his choice as there is hardy‑ any investigation or check before issue of such cards. This practice of asking the management to alter the date of birth entered in the record of the Management on the worker's own showing and confirmed by the reliable Medical Officer by producing fake documents at the fag‑end of their career is to be deprecated. Such workers cannot explain why they slept over their right for all the time and woke up only when letter of retirement was served on them. Unless the evidence of age produced subsequently is proved by authentic and more reliable evidence the claim of the workman for alteration of the date at the time of retirement need hardly be considered.

5. For the above reasons the decision of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./87/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.