NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED Vs. ISHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment Regular Second Appeal No. 1154 of 1989 and Civil Revision No. 1877 of 1989 are being disposed of between the same parties. This order will also dispose of Civil Misc. No. 1569-C of 1989 filed in the Regular Second Appeal wherein prayer was made for staying execution proceedings.

(2.) ISHAR Singh plaintiff was working as Sealman under the National Fertilizers Limited. He met with an accident and was relieved from service in December 1982. Thereafter he was appointed as Mazdoor with effect from January 1, 1983. His date of birth was wrongly entered as July 1, 1930. In fact his correct date of birth was October 23, 1933, as per certificate of birth obtained from the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Una (Himachal Pradesh ). Apprehending that he would be retired on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the papers of the Company, he filed the present suit for declaration that his correct dale of birth was October 23, 1933 and it was wrongly mentioned in the records of the defendant Company as July 1, 1930. He also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from retiring him on the basis of his age as July 1, 1930. The suit was contested by the defendant-Company as well as its Personnel Officer. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the same was barred by time. The provisions of the industrial Disputes Act were applicable which barred jurisdiction of the civil Court. The plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct from filing his suit His date of birth was accepted after his medical examination by the Medical Officer of the Company. It was further asserted that the plaintiff could not appropriate and reprobrate claiming different dates of birth to suit his convenience. On merits there was no such dispute. The plaintiff was asked several times to produce copy of the birth entry. It was on his failure that he accepted to be medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer. It was alter his medical examination that his date of birth as July 1, 1930 was taken as correct as recorded in the papers. The certificate relied upon by the plaintiff was stated to be fabricated. The suit was being filed after about 17 years of is service. Following issues were framed by the trial Court:1. Whether the date of birth of the plaintiff is 23-10 1933 ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.

(3.) WHETHER the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD.