(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith.
(2.) THE petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 30. 6. 2003 passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 1091 bom. L. R. 122 of 2002 which was filed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that in the service records of the petitioner, her birth date was recorded only with reference to the year of her birth and there was no recording of the complete date of birth and that the same discloses the year 1943 only and therefore the petitioner could have been superannuated only on 31. 12. 2003 and not prior to that day. The contention, therefore, is that the petitioner has been illegally declared as superannuated on 31. 12. 2002. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the service records of the petitioner with the respondents clearly disclose the date of birth of the petitioner to be 1. 1 1943.
(3.) THE Industrial Court on analysis of the materials on record has held that the petitioner has not been able to establish the contention that the service records disclose only the year of birth and not the complete date of birth of the petitioner. In the course of the hearing it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the service records were tampered in as much as that while the records originally disclosed only the year of birth, the date with the day and month were incorporated subsequently and without the knowledge of the petitioner. It was also argued that the E. S. I, card, issued to the petitioner, discloses only the year of her birth, namely, 1943 and it does not disclose the complete date of birth. Being so, the petitioner should be held as entitled to continue to be in service till the end of the year 2003. It is also sought to be contended that the service records were produced only at the time of recording of the evidence of the witness on behalf of the employer and not prior to that.