Supreme Court affirms decision on workman's date of birth dispute; wife's appeal dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's award in a case involving discrepancies in the recorded date of birth of a workman. The Court found that the workman's acceptance of the Medical Board's findings and the extended service period estopped him from challenging the date of birth assessment after retirement. The appeal filed by the workman's wife was dismissed, affirming the High Court's ruling that the Labour Court's award was unsupported by evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancy in the recorded date of birth of the workman.
2. Legitimacy of the School Leaving Certificate provided by the workman.
3. Assessment and findings of the Medical Board regarding the workman's age.
4. Jurisdiction and findings of the Labour Court.
5. High Court's interference with the Labour Court's award.
6. Estoppel and acceptance of the Medical Board's findings by the workman.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancy in the Recorded Date of Birth of the Workman:
The workman claimed his date of birth was 11.08.1929 as recorded in the Admission Register of Naba Kumar High English School, Dacca. However, at the time of joining M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, his date of birth was recorded as 01.11.1923. The appellant contended that this entry was erroneous and made without the workman's knowledge.

2. Legitimacy of the School Leaving Certificate:
The workman submitted a School Leaving Certificate in 1972 to rectify the date of birth. The Management referred this certificate to the District Education Officer, Dacca, who reported it as not genuine. Despite this, the workman provided a fresh certificate in 1984, which was duly attested by various authorities, including the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh and the High Commissioner of India in Bangladesh, confirming the date of birth as 11.08.1929.

3. Assessment and Findings of the Medical Board:
In 1984, the Age Rectification Committee referred the workman to a Medical Board, which assessed his age as 58 years on 13.09.1984, implying a date of birth of 13.09.1926. The workman accepted this assessment and continued to work until 13.09.1987 after receiving a one-year extension.

4. Jurisdiction and Findings of the Labour Court:
The Labour Court, upon considering the evidence, concluded that the Management's contentions were unsupported by evidence and that the workman's date of birth was indeed 11.08.1929. The Labour Court awarded full back wages, allowances, and other benefits from 13.09.1987 to 11.08.1990, the actual date of retirement.

5. High Court's Interference with the Labour Court's Award:
The High Court set aside the Labour Court's award, citing that the Labour Court's findings were perverse and unsupported by evidence. The High Court emphasized the workman's acceptance of the Medical Board's assessment and the lack of challenge to this assessment until after his retirement.

6. Estoppel and Acceptance of the Medical Board's Findings by the Workman:
The Supreme Court noted that the workman did not challenge the Medical Board's findings and accepted the extended service period based on this assessment. The Court held that the workman was estopped from challenging the correctness of the Medical Board's opinion after his retirement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the Labour Court's award was perverse and unsupported by evidence. The workman, having accepted the Medical Board's findings and the extended service period, was estopped from challenging the date of birth assessment post-retirement. The appeal filed by the workman's wife was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's award.

---