ELLORA PAPER MILLS LTD Vs. YAMUNABAI NARAYAN TUMSARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge award, dated 14.11.2005, made by the Labour Court, Bhandara in Reference (I.D.A.) No.7/2002.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that respondent No.1-employee claimed that her date of birth was 28.7.1950 and the petitioner had retired her from service as the certificate issued by the Collector, namely, birth certificate indicated her date of birth as 7.1.1942. He invited my attention to the said birth certificate and taking support of some judgments argued that under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act such certificate is conclusive unless rebutted. According to him, no evidence was led by respondent No.1 in rebuttal, and therefore, the certificate was required to be accepted as it has high evidentiary value. He argued that respondent No.1 made attempts to get said certificate cancelled from the Collector but her application stood dismissed, which clearly supports his contention that the date of birth mentioned in the said birth certificate ought to be accepted. He also took me through the cross-examination of respondent No.1 and argued that her evidence in cross-examination clearly shows that she failed to prove the date of birth as claimed by her as 28.7.1950. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the award in question.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the writ petition and argued that respondent No.1 had never filed birth certificate with the petitioner and in fact muster roll maintained by petitioner shows the date of birth as 11.1.1955. According to learned Counsel for respondent No.1, certificate obtained by respondent No.1 from Gram Panchayat shows her date of birth as 28.7.1950. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 set up her case by saying that her date of birth is 28.7.1950, and he further made a statement before me that he would accept the said date of birth, namely, 28.7.1950 as her correct date of birth and would not claim her date of birth as 11.1.1955. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarjoo Prasad...Versus...The General Manager and another, reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1481 and argued that the date of birth was changed without notice to respondent No.1.