E.C.L. Vs. MADHUSUDAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The apex Court while drawing an analogy of Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act in the case reported in (1) AIR 1986 SC 1794, was of the view that with regard to the correction of age sufficient contemporaneous documents from the public record should be the guiding factor. The apex Court in the case reported in (2) 1993 (2) SCC page 162, was of the view that the application for correction of date of birth entered in the service book in 1956, for the first time made in Sept. 199i was hopelessly belated as it had not been even within the five years period from the date of coming into force the relevant circular. This inaction of all these period of about 35 years from the date of joining service, therefore, precludes any one from showing that entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct.

(2.) In this case, the respondent-workman raised a dispute with regard to correction of his age, the company referred the matter to the Age Assessment Committee for ascertaining of his correct age as this workman could not produce any authenticated document in support of his claim with regard to his date of birth. Such Assessment Committee assessed the age of the respondent-workman and granted him two years benefit. The workman was scheduled to retire in the year 1980 as per record of the company after the assessment was done by the said Committee, the workman got benefit of two years and was superannuated in the year 1982. The respondent-workman availed of all pecuniary benefits resulting in such superannuation. After receiving all such benefits the workman raised a dispute with regard to his date of birth which ultimately resulted in an industrial dispute. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the rival pleadings and contentions passed an award directing reassessment of the age of the respondent-workman by the Apex Medical Board, the company challenged the same by way of this writ.

(3.) Mr. Majumdar, appearing for the company submits that since the respondent-workman got his age corrected in terms of the report of the Age Assessment Committee and thereby took the benefit of two years of additional service and since the workman after superannuation in the year 1982 got his all pecuniary benefits in full and final settlement of his claim, he is precluded from raising any further issue and the Tribunal should have rejected the claim of the workman on the said ground.