Holding

A workman who has accepted a Medical Board's age determination and continued service is estopped from later challenging that determination, and a perverse Labour Court award may be set aside by a High Court under Article 226.

Summary

Seema Ghosh, the widow of Nani Gopal Ghosh, challenged an award of the Labour Court that granted back wages on the ground that her husband had been illegally superannuated. The workman had joined Tata Iron & Steel in 1947, his date of birth was initially recorded as 01‑11‑1923 based on a medical officer’s assessment, and later corrected to 13‑09‑1926 after a special Medical Board’s determination, which the workman accepted and signed. After retiring with a one‑year extension, he disputed his age, and the Labour Court ignored the Medical Board’s findings, awarding relief. The High Court set aside the award, deeming it perverse, and the Supreme Court affirmed that the workman was estopped from challenging the Medical Board’s decision and that a perverse Labour Court award can be interfered with under Article 226.

Issues considered

Is the workman estopped from challenging the age determination made by the special Medical Board after having accepted it and continued service?
Can a High Court set aside a Labour Court award on the ground that it is perverse and contrary to the evidence?
Are the school leaving certificates admissible to overturn the Medical Board’s finding?
Did the Labour Court err in disregarding the Medical Board’s report and the workman's acceptance thereof?
Is the award of back wages for alleged illegal superannuation sustainable?

Subjects

age determinationestoppellabour court awardsuperannuationmedical boardindustrial disputeArticle 226perverse awardservice recordschool leaving certificate

Judgment

,...' SEEMA GHOSH A
v.
TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY

( AUGUST 28, 2006

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

labour Laws-Superannuation-Dispute regarding determination of
date of birth of workman-At the time of employment age of workman
. determined by Medical Officer of the Management-The date of birth accepted
by workman-The same was questioned by him after about 25 years by C
producing a school leaving certificate-The certificate was reported by District
Education Officer as not genuine-Constitution of special Medical Board to
rectijj; the age of workman-Age determined by the Board was accepted by
workman-After superannuation on the determined date of birth, extension
of one year availed by the workman-Industrial dispute raised by workman D
thereafter-Award by labour Court in his favour-Writ Petition-Decided in
favour of management-letters Patent appeal dismissed-On appeal, held,
Award passed by the Labour Court was perverse and illegal-Workman is
estopped from challenging the correctness of the opinion of the Medical
Board after his retirement-Evidence-Estoppel.
E
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction-Scope
of-Re-assessment and re-valuation of the weight of evidence recorded by
Labour Court-Permissibility-Held: When the judgment of Labour Court is
perverse and against the facts and records, High Court is entitled to exercise
its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with such finding.
F
Apellant's husband (the workman) joined the services of the respondent-
company in November, 1947. As no documentary evidence in support of his
date of birth was produced by the workman, it was recorded as 1.11.1923 based
on assssment of his age by the Company's Medical Officer. The said date of
birth was entered into Service Card prepared in June 1960, which was accepted
by the workman putting his signature thereon. The workman, for the first G
time in 1972 disputed his age by producing a school leaving certificate
purported to have been isssued by the Headmaster of a School. The said
certificate was referred to District Education Officer, who informed that the
entries in the certificate were not genuine. Workman again produced another
421 H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A certificate mentioning his date of birth as 11.8.1929. Enquiry regarding
genuineness of the same was made, but no reply was received. The company,
referred the matter to its Age Rectification Committee. The Committee
referred the matter to Special Medical Board for assessment of his age as a
special case. The Medical Board assessed his age and determined the date of 1
B birth as 13.9.1926. The Workman accepted the said rectification and raised
no objection thereto. After his superannuation he was also given extension of
one year which was accepted by him. He had also signed a declaration on his
Personal-cum-Family Verification and Service Card in 1987 accepting his
date of birth as 13.9.1926. After his superannuation and after availing
extension of one year, the workman raised an industrial dispute, wherein award •'
C was passed by the labour court in his favour, holding that the management
was not able to support its case by evidence and discarding the opinion and
finding of Medical Board on the ground that the medical officer was not
examined. Respondent-management's Writ Petition was allowed by High
Court. After death of the workman, his wife preferred a Letters Patent Appea~
which was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present
D appeal
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. 1. The High Court was fully justified in setting aside the Award
ofthc Labour Court as the said Award was perverse and illegal inasmuch as
E the judgment of this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. was ignored by the
Labour Court. The workman did not challenge the opinion of the Medical
Board constituted by the Management for determining his age. Therefore,
the workman in the present case is estopped from challenging the correctness
of the opinion of the Medical Board after his retirement. This apart, the school
p leaving certificate which was produced by the workman was forwarded to the
DEO, for verification who informed the Management that the certificate is
not genuine. The workman was to superannuate in the year 1986 but on the
basis of the assessment of ag~ made by the Apex Medical Board, he was aHowed
to continue till 13.09.1987. At that stage, the workman did not challenge the
decision of the Medical Board. It is only after enjoying the benefits of
G extension given to the workman after his retirement, he raised a dispute.
1434-G-H; 435-F-H; 436-AI

Bharat Coking Coal ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Anr., 119951Supp2
sec 598, relied on.
H Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Tra11Sport Corporation and Anr., 119801 Supp.
SEEMAGHOSHr. TATAIRONANDSTEELCOMPANY[LAKSHMANAN,J] 423
::i.
sec 678, distinguished. A
1.2. The Labour Court ignoring all the vital facts decided the issue on
conjectures and surmises and erroneously determined the age of the workman.
The Labour Court fell in grave error in discarding the opinion and findings
of the Medical Board merely on the ground that no medical officer of the
Company who assessed the age of workman was examined nor any report of B
the Medical Board had been filed. Once the workman himself has accepted
the opinion in the finding of the Medical Board and continued to work till
13.09.1986 and one year of extension thereafter, there was no necessity for
the Company to examine the Medical officer and/or to produce the report of
the Medical Board. Moreover, the Medical Board examined the workman in
1984 and the Medical Officer who examined the workman may or may not
c
have been in the service of the company. [432-A-B; 434-D-FI

1.3. The Company has not relied upon the report of the District
Education Officer, wherein it was written that the entry is in the transfer
certificate submitted by the petitioner are not at &II genuine. It is only because D
of the uncertainty about the date of birth of the workman, the Company
constituted a special Medical Board in 1984 to determine the age and hence
the date of birth of the workman. (434-H; 435-A-B)

2. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench are right and within
their jurisdiction in re-assessing and re-valuing the weight of the evidence E
in the case recorded by the Labour Court by which the High Court came to
the conclusion that the workman was not entitled to any relief. When the
judgment of the Labour Court is perverse and against the facts and records,
the High Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and
to interfere with the perverse finding and set aside the same. [436-B-C)
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No, 3725 of2006,
.:,. From the Judgment and Order dated 4,J,2005 of the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.PA No. 380/2003.

Nandini Sen and Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Appellant. G

Raju Ramachandran and M.K. Dua for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. H
A
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

The appellant - Seema Ghosh is the wife of late Nani Gopal Ghosh who
joined the services of Mis Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur.
-
According to the appellant, the workman was born on 11.08. l 929 which was
duly recorded in the Admission Register ofNaba Kumar High English School,
Dacca, where he was a student from 23.01.1935 to 19.06.1942.

B At the time of joining in the service, the workman informed the concerned
department of the Management that his date of birth as 11.8.1929, but
inadvertently the same was recorded as 01.11.1923 which he came to know
long after. Subsequently and long after the workman joined the service, the
concerned department of the Management obtained the signature of the
C workman on a printed proforma of service card. But in the said proforma, no
particulars or date of birth was mentioned. This was on 14.04.1960. The
workman could know of such error of record in the service record only when
a new gate pass was issued to workman in the year 1972, for ingress and
egress to and from the work place which for the first time had the date of birth
of the workman concerned which, according to the appellant, was purportedly
D made on the basis of some erroneous entry made by some assistant/clerk of
the Management earlier.

On 25.08.1972, the workman requested the concerned department of the
respondent to correct the record and to thereby enter his actual date of birth
as 11.08.1929 in place of 01.11.1923. The said workman was thereafter asked
E by Chief Personnel Manager of the Management to produce his School
Leaving Certificate vide its letter bearing No. DPR/9801/72 by the pen of Chief
Personnel Manager of the Management dated 30.10.1972. The workman in
compliance of such request submitted the required certificate on 25.11.1972.
After a long interval of 8 years of such submission of the School Leaving
F Certificate, the Director of Personnel & Industrial Relation of the Management,
by his letter dated 20.11.1980 informed the workman that the School Leaving
Certificate submitted by him was referred to the District Education Officer,
Dacca for verification, who informed the Management that the certificate was ""
not genuine and accordingly, the Management expressed inability to consider
the request of the workman for age rectification. Upon fresh request made by
G the workman, the Headmaster of the very same school had issued certificate
of the even date confirming that the workman - Nani Gopal Ghosh was a
student of the Naba Kumar High English School, Dacca from 1935-1942 and
that his date of birth as recorded in the School Admission Register was
11.08.1929.
H
SEEMAGHOSH1•. TATA IRONANDSTEELCOMPANY[LAKSHMANAN,J.] 425

The workman thereafter submitted a fresh certificate on 25.06.1984 issued A
by the Headmaster ofNaba Kumar High English School, Dacca confirming the
date of birth of workman as recorded in the admission register of the school
as 11.08.1929. The said certificate was duly attested and endorsed by the then
Ministry of Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of
Bangladesh and also the High Commissioner of India posted in Bangladesh B
at relevant time.

In view of the above circumstances, the workman once again requested

- the Management to rectify the error in the entry with regard to his service
record regarding the date of birth and accordingly requested the Management
to enter the correct date of birth of the workman as 11. 08.1929. The Management C
did not respond to the said request of the workman and did not consider the
effect of the fresh certificate dated 19.02.1984 and September, 1984. It is the
case of the appellant that the entire procedure followed by the Management
was clearly in violation of the norms/stipulations in the works standing orders
of the Management prepared and approved according to relevant legislation
involved, which showed that the Management evidently acted according to D
its whims and fancies with no relevance to the industrial law.

The workman superannuated on 13.09.1987 on the even date long before
the actual date of superannuation. The workman raised an industrial dispute
,. on this issue before the Government of Bihar which, in tum, made the reference
to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur with the following terms of reference E

"Whether to retire Shri N.G. Ghosh, T.No. 71937 workman ofM/s Tata
Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. Jamshedpur from 13.09.1987 is justified. If
not, what relief he is entitled?"

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court upon appearance of the parties and F
after recording the respective statement of the oral evidence etc. considered
the submissions and arguments of the workman and of the Management
passed an award on 13.03-1995 in favour of the workman. The Labour Court
observed in the award that the contentions of the Management were not
supported by evidence and no evidence was adduced by the Management G
which could legitimately substantiate their case.

The Labour Court passed the Award holding that the workman is
entitled to full back wages including admissible allowances and other benefits
for the period from 13.09.1987 his date of illegal superannuation to 11.08.1990
the actual date of retirement. The payment was directed to be paid within 2 H
--
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A months failing which the amount could be realized with interest @ 12%.
The respondent Management being aggrieved challenged the Award
passed by the Labour Court by moving a writ petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High
Court. After reorganization of the State of Bihar, the Chhotanagpur Division
B of the then State of Bihar became a new State by the name Jharkhand and
accordingly Jharkhand High Court was constituted and established at Ranchi.
Eventually all matters pending before the earlier Ranchi Bench of Patna High
Court automatically stood transferred to Jharkhand High Court.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court has been pleased to allow
C the writ petition of the respondent and set aside the Award passed by the
Labour Court vide his judgment dated 31.10.2002.

The workman concerned expired after protracted illness on 28.04.2003.
On 04.01.2005, Seema Ghosh, the widow of the said workman - Nani Gopal
D Ghosh preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2005.
Hence, the above civil appeal.

We heard Mr. Deba Prasad Mukherjee ably assisted by Mrs. Nandini
Sen, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned
E senior counsel ably assisted by Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel for the
respondent.

We had been taken through the pleadings, order passed by the Labour
Court and of the Single Judge and the Division Bench and the documents and
annexures filed along with the proceedings.
F
Mr. Mukherjee made elaborate submissions and also took us through
the Award passed by the Labour Court and of the judgments of the High
Court and other documents and certificates produced by him for the appellant.
According to him, it was the case of the Management before the learned '
Court that the age of the workman concerned at the time of joining the
G employment was recorded as 24 years which was allegedly recorded as per
assessment of the Medical Officer of the Management. Thereafter, the
Management, in 1970, issued an identity card and gate pass was prepared
showing the said date of birth of the workman accordingly. The workman
disputed such recording of age and such gate pass, only in 1972. He proceeded
H further to submit that a Medical Board was constituted to assess the age of
SEEMAGHOSHv. TATAIRONANDSTEELCOMPANY[LAKSHMANAN,J.] 427

the workman concerned and thus his age was assessed as 58 years on A
13.09.1984 and that such recommendation of the Age Rectification Committee
was informed to the workman vide letter dated 28.09.1984 and that according
to. the Management, the workman accepted his age as 60 years on 13.09.1986
and enjoyed extension of a year upto 13.09.1987. The workman, however,
contended that he never accepted the erroneous recording of date of birth
· but had been.contesting the same ever since 1972 when the error was brought B
to his notice for the first time by the Management as aforesaid.

He would further submit that the Labour Court passed the Award in
favour of the workman upon consideration of all the facts, circumstances and
the evidences - oral and documentary adduced by both parties to the case C
and that the Labour Court categorically observed in the Award that the
contentions of the Management were not supported by evidence. There was
no evidence adduced by the Management which could legitimately substantiate
their case. Ultimately, there were categorical findings regarding the following
facts:
D
I. "But Service Card shows that entry of the age in the service Card
was not attested by the workman at the time of employment. It
goes to show that before 14.04.1960 Service Card was not shown
to the workman and entry was not attested by him which is
against the provision of the works standing order. The workman
has stated that when his signature was obtained in the Service E
Card on 14.04.1960 entry of his age was not mentioned in the
Service Card."
2 "The perusal of the documents adducted by management,
particularly Ext. M (Service record) Ext. W (Medical Card of
workman) maintained by Labour Bureau of the Management F
Company reflects recording of two distinct dates of birth viz.
18.08.1924 and 12.04.1923 in the Medical Card itself and as per the
service record produced in court, strangely reflected his age as
24 years as on 1.11.1947 whereas quite incredibly 58 years as on
13.09.1984."
G
The Labour Court also gave observation an 1 finding
regarding the management; such as; examination of the workman
with regard to his date of birth has been produced. In absence
of these evidence the date of birth of workman recorded by the
management in service card cannot be relied upon and it cannot H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A be accepted to be true."
3. The Labour Comt was pleased to also observe on the contention
of the management that workman accepted the correctness of
record of his age and could not be allowed to challenge the same
later was not tenable, as the workman had been challenging the
B same ever since the year 1972 when for the first time he came to
know about his wrongly recorded date of birth in new gate pass.
4. The certificates issued by the school where he had been a student
and situated in Dacca, Bangladesh revealed (Ext W/2) that his
date of birth was 11.08.1929, which fact he was consistently
C stating from the very beginning. The court observed "Prima
facie the certificate appears to be genuine. The correctness of
this certificate cannot be challenged unless it is proved otherwise."

On the aforesaid conclusion in favour of the workman, the Labour Court
passed the following Award:
D "The workman is entitled to full back wages including admissible
allowances and other benefits for the period from 13.09.1987 the date
of illegal superannuation to 11.08.1990 the actual date of retirement."
The payment was directed to be paid within two months failing which
the amount could be realized with interest @ 12%."
E
He would further submit that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
has virtually reconsidered and reassessed the evidence of the parties in the
case and thereby exercised jurisdiction in the manner which is highly
unwarranted in law and exceeded its limited writ jurisdiction and cannot,
therefore, be sustained. It was submitted that the judgment of the learned
F Single Judge was clearly one-sided and perverse. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submitted that the Division Bench also failed to appreciate
that in a writ petition arising from an Award in an industrial dispute matter,
the findings arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of the materials and
evidence recorded in the case oral and documentary, the Writ Court cannot
G set aside the findings of the Labour Court on the basis of alleged non-
consideration or ignoring of certain materials by the Labour Court as a Court
of appeal. In other words, learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench
fell in grave error of jurisdiction in re-assessing and re-valuing the weight of
evidence in the case recorded by the Labour Court, by which it came to a

H
conclusion that the workman was illegally and prematurely superannuated, in
the service under the respondent. The respondent failed to produce any --
SEEMA GHOS!fr. l ATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 429
reliable evidence, much less any of the relevant contemporaneous documents A
relating to their contention in defence and in order to rebut the evidence
produced by the workman in support of his case of illegal superannuation.
He would further submit that the High Court has wrongly relied upon the one-
sided testimony of the Management and arrived at a wrong conclusion
regarding the date of birth of the workman by this process, the High Court
gave undue credence to the conclusion of the Management said to be based B
on the unconfirmed and unauthenticated report from the authorities of the
school in which the workman happened to be a student; which allegedly
indicated that the report submitted by the workman was not genuine. Even
though same was without any o•her communicated and corroborating material,
as to when the enquiry was made by the employer, how and by which officer C
the enquiry was initiated by writing a letter to the said school authorities and
what the terms of enquiry was etc. It was further submitted that the workman
had further documentary evidence with the Management in counter to such
un-authenticated information and relied upon fresh certificate in support of
his case which were duly authenticated and certified by the Ministry of
Education and Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh as also endorsed by the office D
of the High Commissioner of Government of India in Dacca, Bangladesh
categorically mentioning and referring to the date of birth of the workman as
11.08.1929 as was entered in the admission register of the school in the usual
course of business, where the workman studied from 1935 to 1942.
E
Per contra Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel submitted
that the civil appeal is misconceived and the impugned order does not deserve
to be interfered with by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India and that the case in hand is fully covered by an order of this Court in
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v. Presiding Officer and Anr, [1995] Supp 2 SCC
598 wherein this Court has he Id that if the workman did not challenge opinion F
of the Medical Board constituted by the Management, for determining the age
of the workman and permitted the workman to work till his attaining the age
of retirement, the workman is estopped from challenging the correctness of
the opinion of the Medical Board after his retirement. He would submit that
the learned Single Judge had relied upon the aforesaid order and observed G
the Award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law.

Mr. Raju Ramachandran also invited our attention to the events which
led to the constitution of the Medical Board for determining the age of the
workman. He submitted that the Labour Court fell in grave error in discarding
the opinion and findings of the Medical Board merely on the ground that no H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A medical officer of the Company, who assessed the age of the workman, was
examined nor any report of the Medical Board had been filed. He further
submitted that the High Court in its jurisdiction can interfere with the findings
of the Labour Court if the findings are perverse.

The Management also filed I.A. No.3 of 2006 for filing additional
B documents on behalf of the Management because according to them all the
documents which were filed before the Labour Court were not available with
the respondent because the same were not traceable being the old ones and
were filed before the Labour Court in 1991. Therefore, they filed additional
documents along with I.A.No.3 of 2006 and our attention was also drawn to
C those annexures and we have perused the same. We have carefully perused
the entire records.

The case of the Management is that the workman was employed in 1947
and his date of birth was recorded as 24 years based on the assessment of
his age by the Company's Medical Officer and that the workman confirmed
D his age by putting his signature on the service record and that the workman
did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his age and he, for
the first time, disputed his age in 1972 by producing a transfer certificate
issued from the Headmaster of Nava Kumar High English School, Dacca
which certificate was referred to the District Education Officer, Dacca for
verification and it was fol.lad that the certificate was not genuine. The further
E case of the Management is that the Age Rectification Committee in its Meeting
held on 23 .07 .1984 decided to refer the case of the respondent No.2 to Special
Medical Board and accordingly the workman was sent to the Medical Board
for assessment of age and the Medical Board assessed the age of the workman
as 58 years on 13.09.1984. The date of birth of the workman was accordingly
F rectified and the same was accepted by the workman. On the basis of the date
of birth assessed by the medical board the workman was to superannuate on
30.09.1987. After superannuation the workman illegally raised dispute with
regard to his age and the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
The Labour Court after considering the facts of the case and the evidence
adduced before him erroneously came to the conclusion that the management
G has failed to prove that the date of birth of the workman is 13.09.1926 as
recorded in the service card on the basis of which he was superannuated. The
..
Labour Court further erroneously held that the correct date of birth of the
workman is 11.08.1929 and he was entitled to continue in service till 11.08.1990.
Consequently the Labour Court by the impugned award directed the
H management to pay full back wages together with interest to the workman
SEEMA GHOSH v. TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 431
from 13.09.1987 to 11.08.1990. A
It is also seen that in spite of that, the workman was medically examined
as per decision of the age rectification committee and the date of birth
assessed by the Medical Board was again entered in the service record which
was accepted by tile workman which was not accepted or appreciated by the
Labour Court when the workman attained the age of superannuation he was B
· given one year's extension .and the same was accepted by the workman
without raising any objection and it is only after the retirement, the wife of
the workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to his age. The admitted
facts that emerge from the above are:

(a) the workman was taken in service in 1947; c
(b) the workman was examined by the Medical Board and his age
was assessed;
(c) In 1960 a service card was issued to the appellant by the
Management wherein the age of the workman was recorded as D
24 years and the same was duly accepted by the workman by
putting his signature;
(d) Only in 1972, for the first time, the workman produced a transfer
certificate issued from the school and disputed his age;
(e) The said transfer certificate was sent to the District Education E
officer who informed the Management that the transfer certificate
was not genuine;
(f) It is also not disputed that after the age rectification committee
took a decision the workman was examined by a specially
constituted Medical Board in 1984 and his age was assessed as F
13.09.1926.
(g) The service record was again corrected and it was made in 1926.
In this way, the service of the workman was increased by 2
years.
G
(h) The workman accepted the age assessed by the Medical Board
in 1984 and according to the age so assessed by the Medical
Board workman was increased by 2 years.

Therefore, according to the assessment of the age made by the Medical
Board, the workman was to superannuate in 1986 instead of 1984. H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A In 1986, the workman was given one year's extension in service and
accepted the said extension without raising any objection and retired on
13.09.1987. The Labour Court, in our opinion, has failed to appreciate the fact
that in 1984 the workman was again medically examined and having been
found fit one year extension of service was given. The Labour Court ignoring
B all the above vital facts decided the issue on conjectures and surmises and
erroneously determined the age of the workman.

It is also very useful to notice the events which led to the constitution
of the Medical Board for determining the age of the workman which are as
under:
c (a) Nani Gopal Ghosh (hereinafter referred to as "workman") joined
the Company on 25.11.1947. As no documentary evidence in
support of his date of birth was produced by the workman, it was
recorded as I. 11.1923 based on the assessment of age of the
workman as 24 years by the Company's Medical Officer. A Medical
D Card was prepared on 29.11.1947 and in token thereof, the workman
put his signatures on it.
(b) The aforementioned date of birth was also entered into Service
Card prepared on 14.06.1960 and in that Card too, the age of the
workman was recorded as 24yrs as on 01.11.! 947 and in token
thereof, the workman again put his signatures on it.
E
(c) In 1970, fresh identity cards including that of the workman were
prepared in respect of each workman and the said identity card
also contained the age and date of birth which wa~ also signed
by the wo.rkman.
F (d) The workman, for the first time on 25 .08.1972, disputed his age
by producing a transfer certificate, purported to have been issued
by the Headmaster of Nabakumar High English School, Dacca.
The said certificate was referred to the District Education Officer,
Dacca for verification of the entry made therein. It appears that
the District Education Officer made inquiry from the Headmaster
G of Nabakum:::r Jnstitution and the Headmaster of the said
Institution vide letter dated 29.10.1980 informed the District
Education Officer that the entries made in the transfer certificate
of Nani Gopal Ghosh are not at all genuine. The company received
the said letter after being endorsed by District Education Officer.
H A copy of the letter dated 29.10.1980 is annexed as R-1.
-
SEEMA GHOSH,.. TATAIRON AND STEEL COMPANY [ LAKSHMANAN, J.] 433
Accordingly, the workman was informed vide letter dated A
20. I 1.1980 that the certificate produced by him was not genuine.
(e) The workman again produced another certificate dated I 9.02.1984
purpotedly issued by the Headmaster of the School, inter alia,
mentioning the date of birth as I I .08. I 929. The then Chief
Personnel Manager again sought confirmation about the B
genuineness of the certificate from the District Education Officer,
Dacca but no reply was received by the Management.
(t) The workman would have retired on 31.l 0.1983 by counting his
superannuation from the date of birth i.e. 01.11,1923, as noted at
the time of the employment. c
(g) However, the Company, as a special case in the aforesaid
circumstances, referred the matter to its Age Rectification
Committee. The said Committe.e met on 23.07.1984 and decided to
refer the case of the workman to a special Medical Board for
assessment of the age of the workman as a special case. D
Accordingly, workman was sent to the Medical Board for
assessment of his age and the Medical Board assessed the age
of the workman as 58 yrs on I 3.09.1984 meaning thereby date of
birth as 13.09.1926. The said assessment of the Rectification
committee was also informed to the workman vide letter dated
28.09.J 984. E
(h) That the workman accepted the said rectification of his date of
birth as 13.09. I 926 for all purposes and no objection was ever
raised.
(i) That, as per the accepted position, the workman was to a~ain the
F
~ge of superannuation i.e. 60 yrs on I 3.09 .1986.

G) That before superannuation, the workman was sent for medical
examination in which he was found medically fit for extension of
his service for one year as per SO 56 of the certified standing
orders and thus his service was extended for one year more.
G
(k) That, the acceptance for extension of one year after expiry of
60yrs, itself indicates that the workman accepted his date of birth
as 13.09.1926, as recommended by the Age Rectification
Committee.

=" (I) The workman accepted the said date of birth and acknowledged H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the same by signing a declaration on his Personal-cum-Family
Verification & Service Card dated 13.03.1987. The said declaration
reads as under:-

"I certify that my date of birth as recorded in the Medical
Card and the service Card on the basis of Matriculation
B Certificate/School Leave Certificate/ Medical Examination held
on xxxxxxx is (in figure) 13.09.1926 (in words) Thirteen
September Nineteen Hundred Twenty Six as per report DPL
5689/84 and the same is correct. I am bound by this and that
the same will not be disputed in the future by me.

c Sd/-

Signature/ L.T.I. of the Party

Date: 13.03.1987"

D A copy of Personal-cum-Family Verification & Service Card dated
13.03.1987 of the petitioner is annexed as Annx.R-2.
(m) That, accordingly, the workman retired from service w.e.f.
13.09.1987 even after enjoying one year's extension."

E The Labour Court, in our opinion, fell in grave error in discarding the
opinion and findings of the Medical Board merely on the ground that no
medical officer of the Company who assessed the age of workman was
examined nor any report of the Medical Board had been filed. Once the
workman himself has accepted the opinion in the finding of the Medical Board
and continued to work till 13.09.1986 and one year of extension thereafter
F there was no necessity for the Company to examine the Medical officer and/
or to produce the report of the Medical Board. Moreover, the Medical Board
examined the workman in 1984 and the Medical Officer who rxamined the
workman may or may not have been in the service of the company.

Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition by the
G Management keeping in view of the Jaw laid i:lown by this Court in Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd (supra) case. The High Court, in our view, was fully
justified in setting aside the Award of the Labour Court as the said Award
was perverse and illegal inasmuch as the judgment of this Court in Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) was ignored by the Labour Court.

H It is also to be noticed that the Company has not relied upon the repo_rt
)

J SEEMA GHOSH r. TA TA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 435
of the District Education Officer, Dacca, wherein it was written that the entry A
is in the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner are not at all genuine.
It is only because of the uncertainty about the date of birth of the workman,
the Company constituted a special Medical Board in 1984 to determine the
age and hence the date of birth of the workman.

Mr. Mukherjee relied on Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Transport Corporation B
and Anr., [1980] Supp SCC 678 which is a short judgment rendered by this
Court, The sole question raised in that appeal is as to the age of the employee-
appellant. There was a discrepancy, which was rather wide since the year of
birth, according to one record was 1917 and according to another record 1927.
In view of this considerable discrepancy, the employer, the Delhi Transport C
Corporation, appointed its Medical Board to fix the age of the appellant and
according to the assessment of the age by the Medical Board, it is seen that
he was 51 on June 13, 1975. This Court has observed that there was no.reason
to ignore the scientific fixation of age when the Court have records which are
flagrantly conflicting. Therefore, the Court fixed the age of the appellant in
partial allowance of his appeal at 5 I on June 13, 1975 which means he will D
retire at the age of 58 on June 12, 1982. A reading of the judgment would also
go to show that the Bench was not going into the vires in this case as both
sides agree that if the court fixes the age as per the Medical Board's
detennination, they will accept and abide by it. On this footing, the Bench
disposed of the appeal in partial allowance and set aside the order of retirement E
• and further directed that the appellant be continued in service with all the
consequential benefits as a regular employee until June 12, 1982.

The above judgment is not only distinguishable on facts as well as on
law. We have elaborately dealt with the events which led to the constitution
of the Medical Board for detennining the age of the workman, The workman F
did not challenge the opinion of the Medical Board constituted by the
Management for detennining the age of the workman and pennitted the
workman to work till his attaining the age of retirement. Therefore, the workman
in the present case is estopped from challenging the correctness of the
opinion of the Medical Board after his retirement. This apart, school leaving
certificate which was produced by the workman was forwarded to the DEO, G
Dacca for verification who infonned the Management that the certificate is not
genuine. The work.nan was to superannuate in the year 1986 but on the basis
of the assessment of age made by the Apex Medical Board, he was allowed
to continue till 13.09.1987. At that stage, the workman did not challenge the
decision of the Medical Board. It is only after enjoying the benefits given to H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the workman and after availing the benefits, the workman raised a dispute
after his retirement in pursuance of which the Labour Court has passed the
Award. The High Court has not given any undue credence to the evidence
of the Management or wrongly relied upon the one-sided testimony of the
Management as alleged by the appellant. We have already noticed that the
B findings arrived at by the Labour Court is nothing but perverse against the
facts and passed the award in favour of the workman on totally mis-placed
sympathy. In our opinion, both the learned Single Judge and of the Division
Bench are right and within their jurisdiction in re-assessing and re-valuing the
weight of the evidence in the case recorded by the Labour Court by which
the High Court came to the conclusion that the workman was not entitled to
C any relief. When the judgment of the Labour Court is perverse and against
the facts and records, the High Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 and to interfere with the perverse finding and set aside the
same.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the wife of the workman
D has no force and merit or substance and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed
and accordingly we do so by affirming the well-considered judgment of the
learned Single Judge if the High Court and as affirmed by the Division Bench.
No costs.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
E

-