Supreme Court Clarifies Employee's Date of Birth Discrepancy in Employment Case. Date of birth discrepancy results in significant ruling against claim for extended service.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Others, addressed the dispute over an employee's date of birth. The respondent initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948, but later sought a change to 12.03.1955, allowing him an extended service period. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and the High Court had ruled in favor of the respondent. However, the Supreme Court reversed these rulings, emphasizing that the initial date should stand due to the respondent's inconsistent declarations and failure to provide documentary proof in a timely manner. The judgment underscores the principle of estoppel and the importance of transparency in employment records.

The case arose from a dispute concerning the correct date of birth of an employee of Barsua Iron Ore Mines, a unit under the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). The employee, initially hired on a casual basis, later sought to change his date of birth after several years of service.

The respondent was first employed in 1972 based on an oral declaration of his age. Later, he attempted to change his recorded date of birth, claiming a mistake had been made initially. This change, if accepted, would have extended his service by several years.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the High Court of Orissa both upheld the respondent’s claim, leading to the award of back wages and an extended service period until 2015 based on the revised date of birth.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions, emphasizing the respondent’s initial declaration and the principle of estoppel. The Court highlighted that allowing the respondent to alter his date of birth after nine years of service would be unjust.

The judgment underscores key legal principles, including the importance of consistency in personal declarations and the role of estoppel in preventing unjust advantage through retrospective claims.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that employee records, once established and accepted, cannot be altered arbitrarily to gain extended benefits. This decision brings clarity to similar cases concerning discrepancies in employment records.