Case Note & Summary
The Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai (Petitioner) challenged an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.II (CGIT) at Mumbai dated 9 August 2016. The first respondent, Tukaram R. Katkar, was employed as a mazdoor with the Bombay Dock Labour Board (BDLB) from 1 April 1979. At the time of registration, he signed a declaration giving his date of birth as 17 February 1942. He was superannuated with effect from 1 April 2000 on reaching age 58. However, the first respondent claimed his actual date of birth was 17 February 1952 and sought correction of his service records. After his superannuation, he obtained a reference from the Central Government. The CGIT allowed the reference, directing the petitioner to treat him as an employee until he attains age 58 based on the corrected date of birth (i.e., up to 2012). The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in accepting the employee's claim without sufficient evidence and that the date of birth entry was made with the employee's consent. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding of fact was based on evidence, including a school leaving certificate, and was not perverse. The court noted that the employer failed to produce the original declaration or prove that the employee had consented to the recorded date. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - The Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding correction of date of birth of an employee, and its finding of fact based on evidence is not liable to be interfered with under Article 226 unless perverse. The Tribunal accepted the employee's evidence including school leaving certificate and held that the employer failed to prove that the date of birth was correctly recorded with the employee's consent. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Date of Birth Dispute - The burden lies on the employee to prove that the recorded date of birth is incorrect. However, once the employee adduces credible evidence, the onus shifts to the employer to show that the entry was made with the employee's knowledge and consent. In this case, the employee's school leaving certificate was considered reliable, and the employer's failure to produce the original declaration or prove consent led to the finding in favor of the employee. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) was justified in directing correction of the employee's date of birth from 17.02.1942 to 17.02.1952 and whether such finding can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CGIT award. The court held that the Tribunal's finding of fact was based on evidence and was not perverse, and therefore no interference under Article 226 was warranted.
Law Points
- Correction of date of birth in service records
- Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction
- Interference with findings of fact under Article 226
- Burden of proof in date of birth disputes
