The petitioner has challenged the award passed on 28.8.89 in Reference Case No.7 of 1987 by this writ petition. 2. On 13.5.85 the workman concerned was served a notice by the Management intimating that he had to retire on 7.7.85. An industrial dispute was raised and the Government of Assam by a notification No.GLR 568/56/4 dated 31st January, 1987 referred the following dispute for adjudication which are quoted below:. "1. Whether the Management of Loongsoong Tea Estate are justified in prematurely retiring Sri HC Das, a staff employee from service with effect from e 7.7.85 instead of from 16.12.87 as claimed by the employee ? 2. If not, is the workman entitled to get all the benefits upto 16.12.87 viz upto the date of his actual retirement as claimed by the aggrieved workman or any other relief in lieu thereof ?" 2A. The Presiding Officer, Assam, Labour Court took up the matter and in consideration of evidence on record had held that Management of Loongsoong Tea Estate are justified in retiring the petitioner from service from 7.7.85 instead of 16.12.87 as claimed by the employee and accordingly the learned Labour Court adjudicated the matter in favour of the Management. Hence this writ petition. 3. Sri BK Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly urged mat the learned Labour Court acted illegally on the basis of its findings on evidence which are inadmissible in law. Mr. Das further submits that even otherwise perversity and non application of mind have vitiated the impugned award which requires interference from this Court. 4. Mr. SN Sarma, learned counsel for the Management on the other hand submits that learned Labour Court have already adjudicated the matter on considering the evidence on record and also considering all aspects of the matter. Neither there is any error apparent on the face of the record nor there is any illegality or perversity requiring interference from this Court and accordingly Mr. Sarma pleaded that in this writ petition there is no merit. 5. I have perused the evidence on record and the statement in respect of a clerical staff, medical staff and artisan staff which were exhibited in Ext I and II. In that statement petitioner's name is shown against SI No. 1868 and his date of birth is shown as 6.7.27, date of joining 1.5.69 and retirement age is shown 58 years. I have perused the evidence on record and the statement in respect of a clerical staff, medical staff and artisan staff which were exhibited in Ext I and II. In that statement petitioner's name is shown against SI No. 1868 and his date of birth is shown as 6.7.27, date of joining 1.5.69 and retirement age is shown 58 years. Ext 2 is the gradation list for clerical, medical and artisan staff and there also described the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.7.27. Ext 5 is the application of the petitioner addressed to the Manager Loongsoong Tea Estate, b at column 3 the age of the petitioner is shown as 42 years. Ext 4 is the appointment letter appointing the workman as Second Factory Clerk with effect from 1st May, 1969. During the conciliation proceedings the petitioner submitted a photostat copy of birth certificate of the workman by his application dated 14th September, 1985 (Ext 6). Ext 7 is the photocopy of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Deaths, Rongpur Gaon Panchayat dated 19.9.85. c The said photo copy also contained the seal of Sri Jatin Gohain, Chief Registration Officer. The certificate shows the registration No. 130 and its date of registration is 10.9.85 wherein it was shown the date of birth was 16.12.29. The learned Labour Court considered the Ext 1 and 5 as stated earlier. As per Ext 1 the date of birth should have been 12.10.26 but in view of Ext 5 the year of birth of the petitioner should have been 19.9.26 instead the Management relied on Ext 1 the gratuity record treated his age and date of birth as 6.7.27 and thereby giving advantege of 8 months to the workman. The learned Labour Court reiied on Ext 1 and accordingly held that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.7.27. As per the agreement reached between the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha and Assam Branch of Indian Tea Association that retirement of staff which have been referred and relied in the writ petition (Annexure A) shows as per clause 3 of the scheme that each and every employee or member of clerical, medical and artisan has to retire on attaining the age of 58 years, unless his/her service extended from time to time, by the Management. Clause II of the said scheme also shows that the age entered into the employees service record or PF record shall be deemed to be his/her correct age. Therefore learned Labour Court has not committed any error in arriving at the decision in respect of retirement of the workman concerned. Admittedly in the instant case the workman declared his age at the time of entry into the service. When a person seeks employment he is required to disclose his date of birth for verification of the Management that the workman concerned is not below or above the prescribed age. It is presumed that the date of birth as disclosed by the incumbent is true and correct. The entry in the service record in this case made on the basis of the statement of the workman remained unchallenged throughout the entire service career of the petitioner till he was superannuated. The revision of age is not to be allowed liberally inasmuch as, such an order is fraught with serious consequences. Allowing the change of age is likely to cost deep resentment and frustration to the junior employees causing far reaching repercussion in the efficiency of the establishment upsetting legitimate expectation of the employees. Under this circumstances of the Management and for that matter the employee refuse to permit the correction of date of birth at a belated stage no exception can be taken. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co Ltd & others vs. Dinabandhu Mazumdar & another in Civil Appeal No.4725 of 1995 decided on 21.4.95 which was circulated to all the High Courts as well as the Tribunal as per the Order and direction of the High Court a petition in special leave in Civil Rule No. 183382 of 1995 The Senior Agriculturist & another vs. Mallaiah the Supreme Court disposed on 21.11.1993 also reminded the Courts the principles regarding determination of age. Accordingly the award in question is fully in conformity with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and therefore the writ petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.