JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The award of the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City dated 23.09.1999 in Reference Case No. 52 of 1992 is under challenge in this writ application by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. 2. The following, dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court:-- "Whether to retire Shri Sagar Mahto, Khalasi, Staff No. 386286. Town Administration Deptt. (Electricity) by treating his age as 12 years, by the management of Bokaro Steel Limited is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 3. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the workman Sagar Mahato was appointed as Khalasi/Mazdoor and he joined the said post on 23.12.1977. On joining, he submitted and filled up Personal Data Form and declared his age to be 42 years. Considering the date of superannuation to be 58 years as per the Standing Order of the Company, the Notice dated 25.08.1993 was served on the workman communicating that he would superannuate from the service of the company with effect from 31.12.1993. 4. The workman made a representation for verification of his age by a Medical Board on the ground that there was some cutting in the entry in the age declared by him in the Personal Data Form, the Management agreed to his request and referred his case to Age Verification Board under the provisions of Companys Certified Standing Order. The Age Verification Board considered all technical data and unanimously agreed that the Age of Sagar Mahato was about 42 years as on 10.12.1993. The said Report bears the signature of the workman Sagar Mahato. The Management agreed with the findings of the Medical Board and the workman was allowed to continue in service, accepting the findings of the Board and accepting that the workman would complete the age of 58 years on 09.12.1997. According to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid fact, no dispute existed regarding the age and date of superannuation of the workman and, therefore, the reference was bad in law. 5. On the other hand, the case of the workman before the Labour Court was that at the time of his recruitment as Khalasi in the year 1977, his age was 32 years and after his selection for appointment, he was medically examined by the Companys Medical Board, which assessed his age to be 32 years in the year 1977. 5. On the other hand, the case of the workman before the Labour Court was that at the time of his recruitment as Khalasi in the year 1977, his age was 32 years and after his selection for appointment, he was medically examined by the Companys Medical Board, which assessed his age to be 32 years in the year 1977. The age of the workman as 32 years in 1977 continued to be acknowledged by the Management for over a decade. It was alleged by the workman, that pursuant to the Managements policy of reducing the total number of work force and, accordingly, his age recorded as 32 years in 1977 was cut and it was made 42 years. This came to the knowledge of the workman in the year 1992. Soon thereafter, he represented the Management but when no action was taken, he approached his Union and raised the industrial dispute. In order to cover up their unethical action, the Management managed the drama of re-medical examination and fixed the workmans age as 39 years, on the date of his joining and thus he would be completing 58 years on 09.12.1997 and would, accordingly, retire from service with effect from 31.12.1997. The further case of the workman was that his real and actual age was 32 years in December, 1977 and, therefore, he should have retired on 31.12.2003. 6. Both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence, before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by the impugned award held that the age of the concerned workman at the time of appointment and as mentioned in the personal Data Form was 32 years which was later on scored out and was made as 42 years by the Management with a view to secure his post retirement before attaining the age of superannuation and, therefore, the action of the Management to superannuate him before attaining the age of superannuation, without complying the mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was illegal and unjustified and, as such, he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 7. The Labour Court directed the Management to reinstate the workman with full back wages and other consequential benefits with pay protection at every stages within three months from the date of the award. 8. 7. The Labour Court directed the Management to reinstate the workman with full back wages and other consequential benefits with pay protection at every stages within three months from the date of the award. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award of the Labour Court is illegal and the findings are perverse and in fact it suffers from total non-application on mind because the documents exhibited on behalf of the Management were not considered by the Labour Court. It was further submitted that the Labour Court, completely ignored the fact that the age of the workman was assessed by the Medical Board, which was constituted at the request of the workman himself for assessment of his age and, therefore, the age, so assessed by the Medical Board was accepted by the workman could not have been challenged. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that there was no signature of the workman in the report of the Medical Board is perverse and is against the materials on record. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Anr., reported in (1995) 2 Supp SCC 598, it has been submitted that the workman cannot challenge the findings of the Medical Board with regard to his age. Learned counsel for the petitioner further, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 696, submitted that the Management rightly referred the case of the workman to the Medical Board for assessment of his age when the concerned workman raised the dispute with regard to his age. 10. It has been further submitted that the concerned workman accepted an amount of Rs. 20,049/- towards leave encashment, canteen incentives/reward as well as Cycle allowance and Rs. 4,832/-towards Bonus towards the period for 1997-98 after his superannuation on 31.12.1997 without any protest, which shows that the concerned workman had no grievance against the report of Medical Board. 11. It appears that the Labour Court has recorded the following finding :-- "On perusal of the Age Verification Board report (Ext. 4,832/-towards Bonus towards the period for 1997-98 after his superannuation on 31.12.1997 without any protest, which shows that the concerned workman had no grievance against the report of Medical Board. 11. It appears that the Labour Court has recorded the following finding :-- "On perusal of the Age Verification Board report (Ext. M-2) I find that it does not bear the signature of the concerned workman hence the contention of the management regarding admission of the said report by the workman false on the ground." This finding of the learned Labour Court is against the material on record, rather it can be said that the said finding is based on apparent error on the face of the record. The Report of the Age Verification Board which was exhibited as Ext. M-2 has been annexed with the present writ application, from which it appears that the said report contains the signature of the concerned workman which was duly attested by one of the Doctors, who was member of the said Medical Board, therefore, I find that the finding of the learned Labour Court is based on apparent error on the face of the record. 12. It further appears from the said report of the Medical Board that the age of the concerned workman was assessed to be about 54 years on 10.12.1993 and, accordingly, the concerned workman, who was earlier going to be retired with effect from 31.12.1993 but on the basis of the assessment of the age of the concerned workman by the Medical Board to be 54 years as on 10.12.1993, the Management allowed to concerned workman to continue in service for further period of four years and then he was made to retire on 31.12.1997. It is also not disputed that after superannuation on 31.12.1997, the concerned workman received Rs. 20.049/- towards leave encashment, canteen incentive/reward etc. and Rs. 4,832/- towards Bonus for the period of 1997-98 without any protest. 13. Therefore, in my view, the report of the Age Verification Medical Board (Ext. M-2) which contains the signature of the concerned workman was the conclusive proof of his age which cannot be allowed to be challenged by the concerned workman, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra). 13. Therefore, in my view, the report of the Age Verification Medical Board (Ext. M-2) which contains the signature of the concerned workman was the conclusive proof of his age which cannot be allowed to be challenged by the concerned workman, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, I hold that the impugned award of the learned Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity of non-application of mind and further that the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court was contrary to the materials on record, therefore, the same was perverse. 14. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned award dated 23.09.1999 passed by the Labour Court as contained in Annexure-5 to the present writ application is hereby quashed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.