1 2025:CGHC:48175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 43 of 2021 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its General Manager (P And A) Secl, H.Q. Sipat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited Kusmunda Area, Post Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - The General Secretary Koyala Mazdoor Sabha (Hms), Qr. No. M / 91, Vikas Nagar Post Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Jabalpur, Through Its Presiding Officer, Cgit Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh., District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede & Mr. Samyak Choudhari, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. The petitioners-South Eastern Coalfields Limited, in WPL No. 43 of 2021, has filed instant writ petition challenging the award dated 20.03.2020 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government 2 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (henceforth, CGIT, Jabalpur) under the Industrial Dispute Act in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/125/2012, on a dispute raised by respondent No. 1-Union on behalf of Workman- Mr. P.N. Shrivas, Asstt. Store Keeper, whereby learned CGIT, Jabalpur has passed the following order :- “30. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed :- A. The action of the management (I) the General Manager Kusumunda Area of SECL Kusumunda, District Korba (CG) and (ii) the General Manager (P &A), SECL H.Q. Bilaspur (CG) in not correcting the date of birth in service sheet in respect of Sh. P.N. Shrivas, Assistant Store Keeper on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate as submitted at the time of appointment as well as the Form_ B register of the company is held to be not legal and justified. B. The workman is held entitled to all service and post retiral benefits treating him in continuous service till date from his date of retirement according to this date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate.” 2. Fact of the case, which emerges from the writ petition are that the petitioners i.e. South Eastern Coalfields Limited is a Company registered under the Companies Act and came into existence w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Mr.P.N. Shrivas (henceforth, 'workman') was employed with the SECL and appointed to post of General Mazdoor as land-oustee on 21/25-04-1979. It is pertinent to mention here that as for appointment in the post of General Mazdoor, no qualification is prescribed, the workman did not produce any educational qualification testimonials or 3 any matriculation certificate with regard to age of proof at the time of his initial appointment. However, he had declared his date of birth as 01.01.1955, which has been recorded in statutory records as in service sheet and various Last Pay Certificates on his transfers. Whereas, in form 'B' his date of Birth has been recorded as 13.12.1959. 2.1 The workman was initially appointed in the year 1979 and he was very well aware about his date of birth recorded as 1.1.1955. As per the directive of competent authority, the names of all existing employees with their date of Birth was displayed in all the Notice Boards of Kusmunda Area in the year 1982. Subsequently, as per provisions of 1.1. 76 of NCWA-III, service excerpts were provided to all the employees showing their various service particulars like Address, Date of Birth, Date of appointment, Family particulars, etc. in the year 1987 and inviting objections specially regarding Date of Birth, Shri P.N. Shrivas on both the occasion, i.e. 1982 and in 1987 did not make any objection to the Management of Kusmunda Area regarding his wrong entry of his date of birth. Had he raised the point of his date of birth being 19.07.1958 as per his claimed matriculation Certificate and not 01.01.1955, the Management would have included his name for Age Determination Committee, as it had done for its other employees. Shri P.S. Shrivas did not raise any objection about his date of Birth till 2008, for the first time, in the year 2008, after completing 29 years of service in SECL,.he pointed out before concerned area of South Eastern Coalfields Limited through the Union, vide memo dated 25/8/2011, the concern area of SECL, Kusmunda has informed to the Union that he did not produce the certificate at the time of his initial appointment i.e. on 21.04.1979. As per the decision of the Company Steering Committee, 4 which is the higher decision taking body of the Company, it was decided to constitute an ADC for all such employees of SECL, whose date of Birth were disputed in the meeting held on 31.12.2014 and on 01.01.2015, in which the ADC of Shri P.N. Shrivas was also conducted. Further, at the fag of service just before three years of his superannuation, the workman had raised the industrial dispute in the year 2011, through the respondent No. 1-Union before the authority of Central Government for making reference to the CGIT in respect of non- correction the date of birth recorded in service record under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After the failure of conciliation of ALC (C) level, the Ministry of Labour referred the matter for adjudication at Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur. “Schedule” “Whether the action of the management of (1) the General Manage, Kusmunda Area of SECL, Kusmunda, District – Korba (C.G.) and (ii) the General Manager (P&A), SECL, H.Q. Bilaspur (C.G.) is not correction the date of birth in service sheet in respect of sh. P.N. Shrivas, Assistant Store Keeper on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate as submitted at the time of appointment as well as the Form B register of the company was legal, proper and justified ? What relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date ?” 2.2 On receiving such reference, the learned CGIT had registered the case as CGIT/LC/R/124/2012 and directed the parties to submit their respective statement of claim. Accordingly, the workman through his union i.e. respondent No. 1 as well as management of SECL had filed 5 their respective statement of claim / written statement before the CGIT. But, without proper appreciating the evidence and defense of SECL as well as ignoring the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Cout in catena of judgment in respect of seeking correction the date of birth at the fag end of his service career, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Cout, Jabalpur has passed the award dated 20.03.2020 under the Industrial Dispute Act in case No. CGIT/LC/R/125/2012 whereby learned CGIT, Jabalpur held that in not correcting the date of birth of the workman (Shri P.N. Shrivas, Assistant Store Keeper), in service sheet is not legal and justified and workman is entitled to all service and post retiral benefits treating him in continuous service till date from his date of retirement according to his date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate. 3. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition questioning the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/SECL would submit that the respondent No. 1/workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor in the year 1979 with the petitioner / SECL and, at that time, no documentary evidence was placed for recording his date of birth and, therefore, on his own instructions, his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1955 in the service record. He submits that the petitioner has never raised any objection with regard to correction of his date of birth for his long service tenure, despite LPC was being issued to him from time to time, indicating therein, his date of birth. He further submits that when the petitioner was to be retired in the year 2015, he had raised the industrial dispute in the year 2011 through the respondent No. 1/Union before the authority of Central Government for making reference to the 6 CGIT in respect of non-correction the date of birth recorded in service record under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, in turn, vide order dated 05.11.2012, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour had referred the dispute to the CGIT, Jabalpur for its adjudication. He further submits that learned CGIT, after examining the evidence and on examining the documents on record, passed aforesaid award. He further submits that case of the petitioner from the very beginning was that entry made in the service record of the workman was on the basis of his oral instructions and learned CGIT has committed an error of law in impugned award, which deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that even in some of the documents, date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 19.07.1958, but those documents are of the year, 2002 and for almost 10-11 years, no objection was raised by workman for correction of his date of birth, therefore, finding recorded by learned CGIT is required to be set aside, as it has not appreciated the evidence recorded on behalf of the parties, particularly, on behalf of the petitioners- SECL in its true perspective. Therefore, impugned order dated 20.03.2020, being unsustainable, is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that even if the CGIT comes to the conclusion that there are two different dates are available regarding date of birth of the petitioner, instead of passing the impugned award, as above, the matter should be referred to the Age Determination Committee to determine the age of the petitioner. He further placed reliance upon the implementation Instruction No. 76 to suggest that the entry of date of birth of the employee recorded in the service record cannot be altered. He placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Employer in relation to Management of Katras Area of M/s Bharat 7 Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Vs. Workman-Shahdeo Das 1 , South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. Ram Niranjan Patel 2 and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja and others 3 . To buttress that at the fag end of service, no correction may be made in the date of birth of the employee. He further submits that before the award is passed, the respondent No. 1/ workman has been retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2014 on the basis of date of birth recorded in his service sheet as on 01.01.1955 on attaining the age of 60 years and the has already been granted all the retiral dues, i.e. pension, gratuity, etc. 5. Per contra, counsel for respondent No. 1/workman while supporting the impugned award would submit that date of birth of respondent No. 1/workman is 19.7.1958, which is reflected from his matriculation certificate, which has also not been disputed by counsel for the petitioners- SECL. The said matriculation certificate was given to the petitioner-SECL at the time of entering into the service by the respondent No. 1-workman and, thereafter, Last Pay Certificate (LPC) was also given to the petitioner-SECL on 17.02.2000, wherein, his date of birth has been recorded as 19.07.1958 and after two years, vide LPC dated 12.11.2002, his date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1955. He further submits that as soon as the petitioner was agitating about correction of date of birth before the petitioners-SECL and on 18.08.2008, he made an objection with regard to correction of date of birth, much prior to date of his retirement and, therefore, it cannot be said that at the fag end of service, the petitioner has raised an objection 1 Civil Appeal No. 2776 of 2025, decided on 13th August, 2025. 2 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21377 of 2024, decided on 3rd January, 2024 3 (2021) 12 SCC 27, 8 with regard to correction of his date of birth. Learned CGIT in categorical terms has held that different date of birth of respondents No. 1/workman is mentioned in his service record maintained by the petitioner-SECT and, as such, according to implementation instruction No. 76, matriculation certificate is the document, which is required to be treated for correct date of birth of the employees and it cannot be altered under any of the circumstances. He further submits that respondent No. 1/workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor as land-oustee on 21/25-04-1979 and, later on, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Store Keeper. For that purpose, requisite qualification is matriculation and, as such, the petitioner was having matriculation certificate and, therefore, the promotion order was issued and once the respondent No. 1/workman was promoted to the post of Assistant Store Keeper, relying upon the said matriculation certificate, they cannot deny in the correction of date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of such matriculation certificate and, as such, he submits that writ petition has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Jai Prakash Singh vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited through Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others 4 and Kulwant Ram vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others 5 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the courts below with utmost circumspection. 7. The dispute in this case is, as to whether date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1955, as projected by petitioners -SECL or 4 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 2063 5 Writ Petition (S) No. 6791 of 2010, decided on 2nd day of July, 2014. 9 19.07.1958, as projected by the respondent No. 1/workman. There is no dispute to the fact that in the year 1979, respondent No. 1/workman entered in the service of petitioners- SECL. According to the submission made by counsel for respondent No. 1/workman, at the time of entering into the service, the respondent No. 1/workman has submitted his matriculation certificate with the petitioners-Department whereas according to submission made by petitioners -SECL, on the basis of instructions given by respondent No. 1/workman, his date of birth was entered in the service record. 8. From the perusal of record of the case, it appears that the respondent No. 1 is having matriculation certificate, according to which, his date of birth as 19.07.1958. Record of CGIT reflects that a certificate from Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, for Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1976 has been issued in the name of workaman Prakash Narayan, son of Kunj Ram Shrivas (respondent No. 1/workman herein). According to which, date of birth of respondent No. 1 /workman is 19.07.1958. The said certificate was purportedly issued in the year 1976. One more document, which is issued by Western Coalfields Limited in Form No. 6, exhibited as W-6 is also on record and according to which, date of birth of the respondent No.1/workman is mentioned as 13.12.1959. Ex. W/8 is ‘last pay certificate’ of the workman dated 17.03.2000, in which, date of birth of the respondent No. 1/workman was shown to be 19.07.1958, which appears to have been entered as per School Certificate. Ex. W/9 is another ‘Last Pay Certificate’ of the workman, according to which, date of birth of the respondent No. 1/working is shown to be 01.01.1955. Therefore, from perusal of the entire record of the CGIT, it appears that 10 three different dates are shown in the record, which was maintained by the petitioer-SECL themselves only and the respondent No.1/workman can not have any access to those records and entry can only be made in these records by the petitioners-SECL. Ex. W-10 is representation / objection made by respondent No. 1/herein dated 19.08.2008 indicating therein that some interpolation has been made in the service book, therefore, it may be corrected and correct date of birth may be entered into in the service book. 9. Implementation Instruction No. 76 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners- SECL is meant for procedure for determination / verification of age of employees of SECL. For ready reference, sub-clause (i) of clause (A) of Implementation Instructions No. 76 is required to be quoted hereinabelow, which reads as under :- “(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment i) Matriculates In the case of appointee who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.” 10. Clause (b) of the same Instructions, 76 provides the review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. I) a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board of Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and /or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said 11 Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employments. 11. Perusal of these instructions indicates that at time of entering into the service, appointees, if he has passed matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth mentioned in said certificate and same can not be altered under any circumstances. Clause ‘B’ is concerned with the review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. The respondent No. 1 is an existing employee and according the sub Clause I) a) of Clause B of Implementation Instructions No. 76, in the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board of Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and /or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment. 12. In the case in hand, the petitioner was employed in the SECL in the year 1979 and appointed to the post of General Mazdoor aas land- oustee in the year 1979 and matriculation certificate was issued to him in the year 1976. Matriculation certificate was issued by the competent Educational Board and it carries sanctity and may be used for determining the date of birth. Therefore, if in the record, three different date of birth of the respondent No. 1/workman was mentioned, then in view of provisions contained in Implementation Instruction No. 76, date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate is required to be treated as correct date of birth. 12 13. Now the question, which comes to this Court for consideration before this Court, is that as to whether respondent No. 1/workman has raised dispute with regard to correction of his date of birth in the service record in due course of time or the same has been made at the fag end of his service carrier. 14. If date of birth of the respondent No.1 / workman is treated as 1.1.1955, as projected by him, retiring age of the respondent No. 1/workman is in the year 2015. As stated above, objection was raised by respondent No. 1 with regard to manipulation in service book and correction of date of birth in the year 2008 i.e almost 7-8 years prior to date of his superannuation. Apart from this, dispute was also raised by the Union of the Workman, which was referred to the CGIT, which ultimately resulted into passing of the impugned award. 15. Learned CGIT has meticulously dealt with the evidence and documents available on record and recorded a following finding, which reads thus :- “28. Now coming to the proved facts of the case in hand which are firstly that Management should have itself settled the issue because the documents of Management itself shows discrepancy regarding date of birth wherein they failed and secondly when they considered this correction on the representation of workman/union in this respect they failed to adopt procedure prescribed in I.I. No. 76 which states that in such a cases date of birth recorded in High School Certificate should be conclusive and Final that to in a case were Management itself got certified the High 13 School Certificate and it was found genuine, more so, the High School Certificate was of 1976 i.e. 3 years before he got service. 29. Hence in the light of above discussion, I am constrained to hold that the action of Management in not correcting the date of birth or workman Shri P.N. Shrivas on the basis of his matriculation certificate as submitted by him at the time of his appointment was unjustified in law. Consequently, the workman is held entitled to all service and post retiral benefits taking his superannuation date on the date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate treating him to be in continuous service. 16. The finding so recorded by learned CGIT appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and also considering the case laws submitted by the respective parties in this regard. There is no dispute in the case laws, which have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioners-SECL that at the fag end of service, dispute with regard correction of date of birth cannot be raised by the employee. But, here in the instant case, dispute has already been raised by respondent No. 1 prior to 7 -8 days prior to his date of his superannuation. Apart from this, it is not a case where only one date of birth has been mentioned in the service record of respondent No. 1, rather in service record of the respondent No.1, two different dates of birth has been mentioned, in which, one date also matches with the date of birth in the matriculation certificate, which according to Implementation Instruction No. 76 itself, the petitioner-SECL ought to 14 have taken it to be correct date of birth of respondent No. 1/workman. Apart from this, the respondent No.1 was also promoted to the post of Assistant Store Keeper, for which, minimum qualification, as submitted by counsel for respondent No. 1 /workman is matriculation. Once the petitioners- SECL promoting the respondent No. 1/workman relying upon the matriculation certificate, then, there was no occasion for them to does not rely the same for the purposes of recording date of birth of respondent No. 1 in the service record. 17. Thus, taking into consideration the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned CGIT, hence, the same is hereby affirmed. 18. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.29 13:49:35 +0530