Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash vs Executive Engineer on 28 June, 2017
WP-19626-2016
(KAILASH Vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER)
28-06-2017
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Girish Kekre, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Bhopal in I.D. reference No.06/2015 by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner seeking correction of the date of birth i.e., 13.02.1961 in place of 05.12.1952.
The Labour Court after recording the evidence brought by the parties has dismissed the claim on the ground that as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, the claim regarding the date of birth can be ascertained if filed before the Court six months prior to the date of retirement. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 01.12.2014. After attaining the age of superannuation, he filed the claim on 27.01.2015, however, such statement of claim is not maintainable, accordingly, it was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that in case the testimony of the departmental witness i.e., Kamlesh Kumar Parashar is perused then as per para 19, the medical certificate was produced from the Board but it has not been duly considered though there was an overwriting in the service book, in such circumstances, correction in the date of birth should be directed but the Labour Court has wrongly dismissed the claim for the reasons assigned in the order impugned.
On the other hand, Shri Kekre, learned Government Advocate contends that it is the case wherein till attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has not claimed for correction of the date of birth. After attaining the age of superannuation, filed such claim which is not permissible looking to the findings as recorded by the Labour Court. However, this petition may be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, it is apparent that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 05.12.1952 at the time of entering into service in the year 1980. The petitioner is claiming his date of birth as 13.02.1961. The basis of such correction is as per the report of the medical board. However, mere acknowledging of the report of the medical Board in the statement of the departmental witness is not sufficient, until it is proved bringing cogent evidence of the doctor to prove the said certificate. It is observed that petitioner being workman is covered under the Industrial Disputes Act who ought to have filed the claim atleast six months prior to his retirement with regard to correction of the date of birth but the application was filed after attaining the age of superannuation.
In addition to the aforesaid, it is observed here that the basis to record the date of birth may be the birth certificate, the first entry in the school register or the mark-sheet of the Board. In absence of all three situations, the medical board certificate would be relevant for age proof. As the certificate of the medical board has not been proved, therefore, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court dismissing the statement of claim seeking correction of the date of birth do not suffer from any perversity or illegality, warranting interference in this petition in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this petition is devoid of any merit, hence, dismissed.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE (ra)