H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) ). Heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the labour court, Rajkot in Reference No. 13 / 1992 dated 30/09/1995. This Court has issued RULE and granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner Corporation in terms of para-8[c] of the prayer clause. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has submitted that at the time of filling up the form by the respondent workman, the date of birth is shown 2 1/05/1993 and accordingly, it was recorded in service book and other record. This date of birth has been accepted by the respondent workman by giving consent to the petitioner Corporation on 2 5/05/1982. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate has submitted that objection against the date of birth was raised against the respondent and when he received retirement notice from the petitioner Corporation, meaning thereby, at the fag end of the retirement, this question has been raised by the respondent workman and therefore, the labour court should not have believed the claim and to pass the orders on such Reference. Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the application which was submitted by the respondent workman to the concerned authority, has been rejected by the letter dated 9th November, 1990. He has also submitted that necessary documents were produced by the petitioner Corporation before the labour court including three circulars dated 4/08/1978, 26/06/1981 and 23/03/1983. Same also placed on record along with petition by the petitioner Corporation. He also submitted that even in service books at pg. 13 and 14, the date of birth is mentioned as 2 1/05/1933, wherein signature of the respondent workman was there. Original application form is also placed on record at pg. 42, wherein Col. 7 the date of birth is mentioned as 21st May, 1933. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that in all aspects, the respondent workman has admitted the date of birth as 21/05/1933 and he never objected during the entire service tenure and at the fag end of the service when the respondent workman received retirement notice, had raised objection aginst said date of birth and therefore, such belated claim cannot be entertained by the labour court. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has also submitted that application for correcting the date of birth, was rejected by the Corporation on 9/11/1990, even thereafter for six months more, the workman had not raised dispute immediately. But the workman raised the industrial dispute subsequently and referred for adjudication on 30/11/1991. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has relied upon decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996 [3] JT 86 and 1993 [2] CLR 86. Mr. Munshaw also submits that the Apex Court has taken view that at the fag end of retirement if any application is submitted, the same would not have entertained by the Court. He also submits that there is Circular with the Corporation that in any case of difficulty or any alternation in date of birth, then the workman should approach the Corporation within three months from the date of appointment. Therefore, application which has been submitted by the respondent workman which has been rightly rejected by the corporation and the labour court has not appreciated all these aspects and allowed the Reference granting relief in favour of the respondent workman which amounts to basic error committed by the labour court. He also submits that granting of benefit of one year backwages for which the respondent workman has not worked and therefore, there caused loss to the petitioner Corporation and therefore, the award under challenge requires to be interfered with by this Court. ( 3 ) ). I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw. It is necessary to note one aspect that the respondent workman has been retired on 31/05/1991 relying upon the date of birth 21st May, 1933. It has come on record that at the time of submitting application for appointment with corporation, no certificate in support of the date of birth was produced by the respondent workman. His date of birth is recorded on the basis of the application form which was mentioned by the respondent workman and medical examination which was admitted by the petitioner Corporation. His date of birth is recorded on the basis of the application form which was mentioned by the respondent workman and medical examination which was admitted by the petitioner Corporation. Before the petitioner Corporation, application which was submitted by the respondent workman for changing the date of birth on the basis of the school leaving certificate issued by the school authority but his request was rejected only on the ground of limitation and his case was not examined by the petitioner Corporation on merits and not ascertained that whether the school leaving certificate is genuine or not. The answer given to the respondent workman is on record on pg. 60 dated 9/11/1990, wherein answer is given by the petitioner Corporation that because of Circular issued by the petitioner Corporation if any application for changing the date of birth is submitted at the fag end of retirement, such application cannot be accepted and entertained by the corporation. Therefore, the case of the respondent workman was not examined by the petitioner Corporation on merits, whether certificate in question was genuine or not and the second ground for rejection of the application was that though the workman had for life time tenure upto age of superannuation and such application was preferred after service of these many years, same was rejected. Before the labour court, statement of claim was filed by the respondent workman vide Exh. 3 and written statement was filed by the petitioner Corporation vide Exh. 7. Thereafter, the respondent workman was examined vide Exh. 9 and one witness who was Clerk working in Swami Vivekanad Vidhya Mandir, at Junagadh on behalf of the respondent workman was also examined at Exh. 17 and the said witness had brought with him the original school leaving certificate record which was produced by the respondent workman. No oral evidence was led by the petitioner Corporation before the labour court. Thereafter, the labour court has examined the merits of the matter. The labour court has given reasons in para-5 of the award that after considering the evidence of the respondent workman and the witness of the respondent workman vide Exh. 17 who was working as Clerk in concerned school, who had produced General Register and on page at Pg. 89 at Sr. No. 199 / 1947 relevant entry was available. That this record was produced before the labour court. 17 who was working as Clerk in concerned school, who had produced General Register and on page at Pg. 89 at Sr. No. 199 / 1947 relevant entry was available. That this record was produced before the labour court. On the basis of the original record, the labour court has come to the conclusion that the real date of birth of the respondent workman is 21/05/1934. This certificate was given by the school authority on the basis of the original record which was produced before the labour court. Therefore, considering the oral evidence of the respondent workman and the evidence of the witness of the respondent workman who proved the said certificate on the basis of original register and the same register was signed by Principal. Therefore, the labour court has come to the conclusion that school leaving certificate which was produced by the respondent workman is genuine and there was no doubt against genuineness of said certificate. The labour court, therefore, come to the conclusion that after proving the date of birth based on the relevant document of school leaving certificate which was recognised by the Corporation along with birth date register. Therefore, the labour court has granted benefit of full backwages of the interim period with effect from 1/06/1991 to 31/05/1992. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of SECRETARY and COMMISSIONER, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS V. R. KIRUBAKARAN reported in 1993 II CLR 860 which is produced on page 37 of this petition. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has observed that as such whenever an application for alternation of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the Court or the Tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants, to raise such a dispute, without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier. Therefore, perusal of the aforesaid decision does not mean and nor issued any directions to the effect that at the fag end near about superannuation, an application submitted by the employee for alteration of the date of birth should not be entertained on merits and the same is required to be rejected only on the ground of delay. Therefore, perusal of the aforesaid decision does not mean and nor issued any directions to the effect that at the fag end near about superannuation, an application submitted by the employee for alteration of the date of birth should not be entertained on merits and the same is required to be rejected only on the ground of delay. This aspect has also been considered by the Apex Court and held that in such case, to examine the genuineness of the documents produced by the employee and if the document is found to be genuine, the same should be considered by the concerned court. ( 4 ) ). This Court has perused the entire award passed by the labour court. The labour court has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of the oral evidence led by the respondent workman and his witness vide Exh. 17 that school leaving certificate which was produced by the respondent workman is genuine document and the same is found to be correct. There is no doubt about genuineness of the document and the on that base, the labour court has passed this award. It is also necessary to note that the petitioner Corporation has not led any evidence to rebut the evidence of the respondent workman. Therefore, the labour court has rightly relied upon the evidence of the respondent workman, so also, the evidence of his witness. The labour court has given cogent reasons in support of his conclusion and there is no error committed by the labour court which found apparently on the face of the record. There is no jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity committed by the labour Court and no interference of this Court is called form while exercising the powers under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) ). In respect of the contention raised by Mr. Munshaw that the labour court ought not to have entertained the Reference and would not have granted relief in favour of the respondent workman inasmuch as the respondent workman has submitted application at the fag end of retirement and when the respondent approached the labour court after retirement. Recently, the Apex Court has examined this question in case of CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED v. RAGHUVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2002 SC 509 . Recently, the Apex Court has examined this question in case of CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED v. RAGHUVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2002 SC 509 . The relevant observations made in para-1 and 2 are referred as under :-"the respondent No. 1 [hereinafter referred to as the respondent ] was an employee in the establishment of the appellant. He became its employee on its being taken over on 23-6-1981. The appellant notified to its employees who had become its employees, on the erstwhile company being taken over, to produce proof of their age in two notices issued on 5-12-1981 and 11-2-1982. However, the appellant did not make any claim as to what is his correct date of birth and which is in the record of the appellant is 1-7-1932 and, therefore, he was retired from service on 30-6-1990 on attaining the age of 50 years. The respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute two years later before the Labour Court and he placed proof before the Labour Court to show that his date of birth is 2-2-21936 and, therefore, he should have been retired only on 1-2-1994. The labour court recorded a finding that the date of birth of the respondent is 2-2-1936. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned single Judge and by the Division Bench of the high Court as well. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed by special leave. 2. THE fact that the date of birth of the respondent is 2-2-21936 cannot be seriously disputed in view of the certificate issued by the Registrar of births and deaths. Therefore, this findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court, cannot be assailed. However, in this regard respondent had made a claim before the Labour court two years after his retirement and it is not proper for the Labour Court to have granted the backwages for the period between 30-6-1990 to 1-2-1994 and that it could have only granted the backwages from the date of filing of the petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court ought not to have granted interest either, particularly, when the respondent had not worked for that period and was making a belated claim. In the circumstances grant of interest also is not appropriate. The Labour Court ought not to have granted interest either, particularly, when the respondent had not worked for that period and was making a belated claim. In the circumstances grant of interest also is not appropriate. The respondent would be entitled only to backwages for a period of two years from 1-2-1992 till 30-1-1994. He will not be entitled to any interest. The amount due to him shall be paid by the appellant within three months from today. If such a payment is not made he will be entitled to interest @ 18 % per annum. The appeal is partly allowed as stated above. " ( 6 ) ). However, it is settled position of law that the powers of this Court are very limited while examining the legality and validity of the award passed by the labour court. The view taken by the Apex Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. I. O. B. Staff Canteen Workers Union and Another reported in 2000 SCC [ Labour and Service ] pg. 471, the Apex Court has held that while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, interference with pure finding of fact and Reappreciation of the evidence is held to be impermissible. The High Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction under Article 226. Even insufficiency of evidence or that another view is possible, it is held that no ground to interfere with the findings of the Industrial Tribunal. Recently also, the Apex Court has considered this aspect in case of SUGARBAI M. SIDDIQ AND OTHERS V. RAMESH S. HANDKARE reported in 2001 [8] SCC pg. 477, the Apex Court has held that scope of powers of High Court is concerned not with the decision of the lower court / tribunal but with its decision-making process. High Court must ascertain whether such Court or tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with a particular matter and whether the order in question is vitiated by procedural irregularity, then only High Court can interfere with, otherwise, not. ( 7 ) ). High Court must ascertain whether such Court or tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with a particular matter and whether the order in question is vitiated by procedural irregularity, then only High Court can interfere with, otherwise, not. ( 7 ) ). In view of above observations made by the Apex Court and considering the limited jurisdiction having by this Court, according to my opinion, considering overall facts and circumstances of this case and the genuineness of the document in question found by the labour court and on that basis, just and proper award has been passed by the labour court, according to my opinion, no interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is called for. Therefore, there is no substance in this petition and the same is rejected accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. .