Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a dispute regarding the date of birth of respondent no.3, a former employee of Barsua Iron Ore Mines (a unit of SAIL). The respondent no.3 was initially employed as a casual Piece Rated Mazdoor on 14.04.1972. On 27.12.1972, he submitted a Descriptive Roll declaring his age as 24 years, without any documentary proof, leading to his date of birth being recorded as 27.12.1948. He signed this form, accepting the recorded date. On 14.08.1982, after the merger of HSL into SAIL, he submitted another Descriptive Roll changing his date of birth to 12.03.1955, again without documentary proof. The appellant accepted this change without scrutiny. On 24.11.1998, the appellant asked for documentary proof, and the respondent submitted a School Transfer Certificate (STC) dated 12.01.1972 showing his date of birth as 12.03.1955. On 29.11.2001, the appellant determined his date of birth as 27.12.1948 based on the initial declaration. A dispute was referred to the CGIT on 09.10.2003. Meanwhile, the respondent superannuated on 31.12.2008 based on the initial date of birth. The CGIT on 24.01.2018 held that the appellant's determination was unjustified and awarded 50% back wages from 2008 to 2015 (based on the STC date). The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition on 04.02.2021. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the CGIT Award and the High Court judgment. The Court held that the respondent's conduct in initially declaring a false age to obtain employment (as he would have been under 18 if his claimed date of birth were true) and then seeking a change after 9 years without proof was a deliberate attempt to take double advantage. The delay of 26 years in raising the dispute and the lack of bonafides disentitled him to any relief. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the employee to establish his date of birth, and the belated claim after superannuation was not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Delay and Acquiescence - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1) - Employee initially declared age as 24 years (date of birth 27.12.1948) to obtain employment, later after 9 years sought change to 12.03.1955 without documentary proof - Held that such belated claim after 26 years and after superannuation is not maintainable and amounts to taking double advantage (Paras 16-18). B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - School Transfer Certificate - Employee failed to produce any documentary proof at the time of initial employment or for 9 years thereafter - Held that the onus to prove correct date of birth lies on the employee and mere production of a School Transfer Certificate after 26 years is insufficient to dislodge the initial declaration (Paras 16-18). C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reference - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - CGIT exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding back wages based on a disputed date of birth without considering the employee's conduct and delay - Held that the Award was arbitrary and liable to be set aside (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee who initially declared his age as 24 years (date of birth 27.12.1948) to obtain employment, and later after 9 years sought to change it to 12.03.1955 based on a School Transfer Certificate, is entitled to correction of date of birth and consequential benefits.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.02.2021 and the Award of the CGIT dated 24.01.2018. The claim of respondent no.3 for correction of date of birth and back wages was dismissed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on employee to prove date of birth
- Delay in raising dispute raises presumption of acquiescence
- Estoppel by conduct
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 - Section 10(1) reference
- Evidence Act - Section 115
