SAROJ KUMAR BHATTACHARYA Vs. BENGAL IMMUNITY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated May 6, 1993, passed in Matter No. 156 of 1993 by the learned trial Judge dismissing the application. The subject -matter of the writ application was for correction of the date of birth of the Appellant writ Petitioner. Originally, the Respondent company was a private company known as 'Bengal Immunity Company Limited.' Admittedly, the Appellant -Petitioner joined the service on May 1, 1993. At the time of entering into his service, on the basis of the declaration made by him, his date of birth was recorded as on March 21, 1935. Thereafter, on October 30, 1956, the Appellant - Petitioner made a declaration required for the purpose of gratuity fund in which he had declared his age on September 21, 1956, as 21 years 6 months on the basis of horoscope which tallies with the date of birth initially declared by him as' March 21, 1935. While he was in service the Appellant -Petitioner appeared as a private candidate in School Final Examination conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in March 1962 and he passed in 3rd Division, and on the basis of his own statement made before the Board his date of birth was recorded in the School Final Certificate as '10th June, 1939'. Admittedly, after passing the School Final Examination no reference was made to the authority concerned for correction of his 'date of birth in the records. But, according to the Appellant -Petitioner, he wrote a letter to the authority concerned on January 9, 1979, for treating him as School Final passed and accepting the date of birth as '10th June, 1939' as was recorded in the said Certificate. Incidentally, for 17 years he was keeping significantly silent with regard to the dispute of his date of birth, and again he made a representation on February 2, 1985.

(2.) It appears that the Appellant -Petitioner was president of the Bengal Immunity Workers' Union and on March 20, 1984, a meeting was held by and between the management and the workmen in which the Appellant - Petitioner participated as a President and for the purpose determining the age, Age Dispute Committee was constituted formulating the principle and procedure to be followed for the purpose of settlement of age dispute by bipartite agreement between the management and the workmen. The said Age Dispute Committee was set up with a Chairman and three members and on May 28, 1985, the Personnel Manager of the company issued a notice regarding age dispute intimating all workmen and all concerned. The contents of the said notice dated May 28, 1985, is as follows:

(3.) On the basis of the date of birth as originally recorded and as originally declared which was supported by a subsequent declaration, a notice of retirement was issued. This notice of retirement was the subject -matter of challenge in the writ application. In support of his case, that the management has accepted his date of birth as June 10, 1939, instead of March 31, 1935, reliance was placed on a letter written by Shri G. Rai Verman, the then Personnel Manager who was officiating in that post, addressed to the Appellant -Petitioner wherein the said authority has stated that his date of birth was recorded in the records of service as June 10, 1939. The genuineness of that letter dated June 18, 1985, issued by Shri G. Rai Verman was seriously disputed by the Respondent -company and in the affidavit -in -opposition it was categorically stilted in substance that the said letter was a fake letter inasmuch as from the despatch register this letter with that number was not a letter addressed to the Appellant -Petitioner at all, but to the National Insurance Company for a different purpose and further it was submitted by Mr. Chaudhuri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent -company, that self -same authority had issued a notice on May 28, 1985. Admittedly, Shri G. Rai Verman was not a member of that company exclusively entrusted to the Age Dispute Committee and after constitution of an Age Dispute Committee and after issue of the notice, such dispute could not be adjudicated by the said Shri G. Rai Verman who was in probation and whose service was terminated in August 1985 because of unsatisfactory work.