18.08.2026 Ct. No. 30 Sl. No.9 skg WPA 19241 of 2026 The Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Asrafilal Yadav & Anr. Mr. Niraj Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kr. Dubey, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Rijuan Mandal, Adv. …for the respondent no.1 1. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 14th July, 2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case no. 28/23 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. It appears that vide the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata has been pleased to reject the petitioner/company’s application dated 03.07.2026, by which the petitioner had prayed for ossification test of the workman. 3. On hearing of the learned Counsel and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that admittedly, at the time of entering into employment, the applicant declared his year of birth as 1962, which was duly recorded in the ESI record. 4. On the basis of the said record the workman retired from service in the year 2020 and accepted all his 2 retirement benefits without any protest. After 2½ years of his retirement the workman approached the Management through the Union seeking reemployment for short period on account of acute necessity and accordingly he was engaged into service for a period of 4½ months with effect from 17.02.2023 to 30.06.2023. Thereafter on 19.07.2023 the applicant manufactured a provident fund record disclosing his date of birth as 19.07.1976 and on that basis filed the instant case for alleged illegal termination of service. 5. Considering the said facts this Court is of the view that the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Industrial Tribunal rightly rejected the prayer for ossification test. 6. Thus it is directed that at the time of deciding the application in case no. 28 of 2023 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Judge shall take into consideration the year of birth which was recorded at the time of his employment in the ESI record, which was never challenged by him for more than 50 years. 7. Any document produced subsequent, to such retirement when on the basis of the date of birth recorded at the time of employment retiral benefits were accepted without any protest or objection shall not be considered by the Court not only for the interest of justice but also because such acts and conduct of 3 the workman, if entertained, the same shall be clear abuse of the process of law. 8. Considering the fact that the date of birth at the time of employment (1962) is to be taken as correct, considering that the same was not challenged for 50 years and the retiral benefits have also been received by the workman on the basis of the said date/year of the birth on superannuation in 2020. 9. The writ application being WPA 19241 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the learned Judge, 7th Industrial Tribunal shall proceed with the case expeditiously and make all endeavour to dispose of the case, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on an urgent basis. [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]