BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED Vs. V ETHIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' first appeal from the judgment and decree dt. 19-11-1996 delivered by Sri. K. H. Malleshappa, X Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City, in a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's date of birth is to be 2-2-1943 and not 31-8-1937 and for further declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in service of the 1st defendant till 2-2-2001.

(2.) ). The plaintiff has alleged that the plaintiff was employed in the defendants' Company in 1962 as a casual worker and thereafter was confirmed in the defendants' Company on 27-7-1964. According to the plaintiff, the defendant-company required the plaintiff to report before the Chief Medical Officer of the Company to undergo medical examination for recording his date of birth and it appears after the medical examination vide Ex. D-1 dt. 6-9-1972, the Medical Officer assessed the date of birth of the plaintiff/respondent to be 31-8-1937. The plaintiff alleged that when he came to know about this date which had been fixed as 31-8-1937 as his date of birth, he felt that it was wrong date of birth which was recorded on medical basis and he made a representation in writing to the 2nd defendant-Personal Manager of the Company on 6-4-1987 and sought its correction on the basis of Transfer Certificate alleged to have been issued by the Seva Ashram Middle School, Sreerampuram, Bangalore, showing the actual date of birth to be 2-2-1943. The defendants vide letter dt. 22-5-1987 informed the plaintiff that the company can consider only S. S. L. C. certificate and not any other school certificate of plaintiff/respondent. Only S. S. L. C. certificate could be acceptable and as the plaintiff had not studied up to SSLC, Transfer Certificate could not be relied which the plaintiff has produced for the purpose of determination of the age and as such, the defendants have accepted the age as assessed by the Medical Officer. That the date of birth of the plaintiff/respondent is 31-8-1937. No doubt, the plaintiff has stated that subsequently he appeared in S. S. L. C. Examination and thereafter got the S. S. L. C. failure certificate in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 2-2-1943 and the plaintiff/respondent again made another representation on the basis of that S. S. L. C. certificate. In the plaint paragraph 9 it is mentioned that the plaintiff has written one more letter on 10-2-1993 to the Executive Director of the 1st defendant company and requested to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff as 2-2-1943. That had been rejected. A legal notice was given and thereafter this present suit had been filed seeking declaration of date of birth. The suit was contested. The written statement was filed and amongst others, plea of limitation had also been raised by the defendants. The trial Court framed the following issues :-1. Whether the plaintiff proves that at the time of his appointment as casual labourer and also his appointment as helper, the first defendant did not call upon the plaintiff to produce authenticated records in proof of his date of birth?2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Chief Medical Officer arbitrarily assessed his date of birth as 31-8-1937 without giving him enough opportunity to produce authenticated documents in proof of his date of birth?

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff proves his actual date of birth being 2-2-1943?