JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. The petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed quashing the award dated 4.1.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 91 of 1995 (Annexure 16) whereby and whereunder it was held that the action of the management in superannuating the concerned workman with effect from 1.7.1993 or 7.7.1993 or 17.10.1993 was justified and therefore, she was not entitled for any relief. 2. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded is that the concerned workman joined service as a Creche Nurse in March, 1958 in Samla Dalur Bandh Colliery and her name was duly recorded in Form "B" Register and she also qualified herself to become a member of the Coal Mines Provident Fund (C.M.P.F.) Form "A" was filed up through the management and her date of birth was recorded as 4.11.1938 both in the Form "B" Register maintained in the colliery and also in Form "A" maintained in C.M.P.F. Office at Asansol. Subsequently she gave up her work at Samla Dalur Bandh Colliery and joined in the same capacity at. Khas Kallmati Colliery, PO Kumardhubi, district Dhanbad sometime in the year 1961. There also she gave up the work in 1964 and worked as Creche Nurse in South Loyabad Katras and New Dhanmabandh Collieries during the period 15.1.1968 to 31.7.1971. Whereafter she again joined in the same capacity in Gondudih Colliery on 2.8.1971 and continued to work there till she was superannuated on 7.7.1993. According to her, when she went to join Gondudih Colliery on 2.8.1971, her date of birth was recorded as 4.11.1938. 3. The petitioner has stated that on 25.4.1988, a joint meeting of the Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry was held and as her Resolution No. 5, the entire record of service for "Undisputed Cases" was to be computerized and the same was not to be reopened. Resolution No. 5 reads as follows : "It was agreed that in undisputed cases with view to have stable record of service, the entire date in the service record should be computerized and a copy should be retained at the Colliery/Project/Area/Subsidiary level and at the Head Quarters of Coal India. Such undisputed cases will not be reopened. It was also agreed that after the task of computerization is over, a copy of the print out will be given to the employees concerned." 4. Such undisputed cases will not be reopened. It was also agreed that after the task of computerization is over, a copy of the print out will be given to the employees concerned." 4. According to the petitioner, Annexure 1, which was a service except, was circulated to all concerned including the petitioner and the concerned workman, in the instant case, did not raise any objection and therefore, her case was undisputed. In other words what the petitioner contends is that it was only in relation to undisputed cases which were to be computerized and which were not to be reopened and there fore the service except insofar as it related to the concerned workman, became conclusive and final. 5. After she was superannuated, she wrote a latter on 26.8.1993 to the Deputy Chief Manager (System) wherein she requested that she should be informed about the date of birth in the computerized record. That letter is Annexure 3 to this application. Thereafter it appears that on 20.12.1993 the General Manager (System) informed one Sri T.P. Ojha, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad informing him that the date of birth of the concerned workman as recorded in the computer was 4.11.1938 and the same was recorded on the basis of her service excerpt which was submitted by the Colliery. 6. The petitioner has stated that the concerned workman sometime in the year 1992 was Informed by a Clerk that her date of birth has been shown as 38 years or 2.8.1971 in the Form "B" Register and not as 4.11.1938 and therefore she would be superannuated with effect from 7.1.1993. She then personally saw the age so recorded (i.e. 38 years as on 2.8.1971) in the Form "B" Register and she also saw that No. 33 originally written in the Form "B" Register had been cut off and in its place, the No. 38 had been mentioned. 7. According to the petitioner therefore, there was a manipulation made in the Form "B" Register only for purposes of forcing her to go out of job in the year 1993 when she should have been allowed to continue up to 4.11.1998 taking her date of birth to be 4.11.1938. 8. 7. According to the petitioner therefore, there was a manipulation made in the Form "B" Register only for purposes of forcing her to go out of job in the year 1993 when she should have been allowed to continue up to 4.11.1998 taking her date of birth to be 4.11.1938. 8. A representation was filed for rectification on 28.8.1992 which was followed by another representation to the General Manager on 9.2.1993 but even thereafter the concerned workman did not receive any reply which gave rise to raise an industrial dispute on her behalf by the Mine Mazdoor Union vide letter dated 14.5.1993. 9. The further case of the petitioner is that "A" Form was called from the Coal Mines Provident Fund Office which, according to the petitioner, was prepared/ filed in the year 1990 wherein her date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 17.10.1933. When Form "A" was called for, the concerned workman denied her signature but even thereafter nothing happened and she was directed to superannuate with effect from 1.7.1993 and a letter to that effect was issued under the signature of the Project Officer of the Gondudih Colliery on 24.6.1993 (Annexure 9). Thereafter an Industrial dispute was raised whereafter conciliation proceedings were held and upon transmission of a failure report, the following dispute was raised for adjudication before the Central Government. Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad : "Whether the action of the management in superannuating Smt. Snehlata Srivastava, Creche Nurse, Gondudih Colliery of M/s. BCCL, w.e.f. 7.7.1993 is justified ? If not to what relied the concerned workman is entitled ?" 10. Upon reference the same came to be registered as Reference Case No. 91 of 1995. Written statement, rejoinder were filed, evidences were taken, arguments were heard and ultimately the impugned Award was passed. 11. The case of the management, on the other hand is that the concerned workman was appointed on 2.8.1971 and that the date of birth as shown in the Form "B" Register has indicated that the concerned workman was 38 years. Accordingly, and on the basis of the Form "B" Register, she was superannuated with effect from 17.10.1933. 11. The case of the management, on the other hand is that the concerned workman was appointed on 2.8.1971 and that the date of birth as shown in the Form "B" Register has indicated that the concerned workman was 38 years. Accordingly, and on the basis of the Form "B" Register, she was superannuated with effect from 17.10.1933. The management further contended before the tribunal that as per the law and also the Certified Standing Orders, the correctness of the entries made in the document cannot be changed and the date of birth recorded in the Form "B" Register becomes conclusive for deciding the time of superannuation. It was also contended by the management that the concerned workman with connivance of certain staff made manipulation at the time of issuance of service except in the year 1987 and she got the date of birth recorded as 4.11.1938 and whereafter she raised the present dispute. It appears form paragraph 4 of the award that heavy reliance was placed by the concerned workman upon the service excerpt which is equivalent to Annexure 1 herein in support of her contention that her date of birth stood recorded as 4.11.1938. The management, on the other hand, placed reliance not only on the Form "B" Register but also in "A" Form maintained by the Coal Mines Provident Fund and submitted that inspite of the availability of an unimpeachable document, such as, Form "B" Register showing 38 years as on 2.8.1971, the concerned workman got in manipulated in connivance with certain staff so that in the service excerpt, her date of birth was recorded as 4.11.1938. It is in that context that the learned tribunal doubted the veracity of the entry made in the service excerpt. 12. It appears that during the pendency of the dispute. The management has also requested the CMPF authority to furnish the date of birth. This became necessary on account of the contention of the concerned workman to the effect that her date of birth was 4.11.1938. In reply, the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad informed that as per the declaration made in "A" Form, the date of birth of the concerned workman was 17.10.1933. The said "A" Form was called for by the tribunal and it was noticed by the tribunal that the same contained the signature of the concerned workman also. In reply, the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad informed that as per the declaration made in "A" Form, the date of birth of the concerned workman was 17.10.1933. The said "A" Form was called for by the tribunal and it was noticed by the tribunal that the same contained the signature of the concerned workman also. The said CMPF document being Form "A" is Annexure 8 to this writ application. The signature on the said document appears to have been challenged by the concerned workman saying that the signature was forged but the learned tribunal has recorded at paragraph 6 that : "Such assertion has been made only in the written statement filed as neither the concerned workman in her evidence has stated anything about disowning her said signature nor any other material has been put forward to substantiate the said assertion made in the written statement." 13. The learned Tribunal therefore has rightly come to a conclusion that the said signature cannot be said to be suspicious because she is a literate lady and she cannot be expected to have put her signature to such a declaration without going through the contents thereof. 14. Taking the Form "B" Register to be correct therefore, the learned tribunal rightly held that the date of retirement should have been 1.7.1993 and has very carefully explained, in paragraph 7 of the award, the reasons which prompted the management to treat the date as 1.7.1993 or 7.7.1993 or 17.10.1993. However, the fact remains that the year 1993 became the year of superannuation of the concerned workman. The tribunal gave due importance to Form "B" Register which is a Statutory Register under the Mines Act. 15. Thus upon perusal of the facts and circumstances involved in this writ application, it is apparent that whether the date of birth of the petitioner was 4.11.1938 or later, is a matter that (sic) squarely within the domain of facts. The learned tribunal has very painstakingly dealt with the issues and therefore, this Court does not find either any perversity or any irregularly with the same. The learned tribunal has very painstakingly dealt with the issues and therefore, this Court does not find either any perversity or any irregularly with the same. In the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union and Anr., (2000) 4 SCC 245 , it has been held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not exercise the power of appellate jurisdiction. 16. For the foregoing reasons there fore, the Court does not find any merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circum stances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.