JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. All these three writ applications are more or less similar and arising out of the same point of law, hence they are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 5177/2002 has been filed on behalf of petitioner Lato Barhi for quashing the order dated 16.7.2001. whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 2 has refused to refer the dispute under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act and to direct the respondents to make a reference of dispute in relation to the petitioner of Basuria Colliery of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, to an appropriate Tribunal for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is working under respondent No. 3 as a pump operator at Gondudih Colliery under Kusunda area. He was employed on 31.1.1973 and his date of birth mentioned in the identity card is 12.8.1950 and he was shown to be aged 31 years on 19.12.1980. (Annexure 1). The respondent No. 3 issued service extract, vide letter dated 30.6.1996, in which it has been stated that petitioners age was 31 years on 18.12.1980 (Annexure 2). The petitioner in the year 2000 came to know that his date of birth has been changed to 33 years on 18.12.1980 as per IBM sheet and the petitioner was never informed about the aforesaid change of age. It is stated that petitioner is under bonafide impression that his date of birth is 12.8.1950 and will be superannuated on the basis of this date of birth but when he came to know that his date of birth has been changed to 33 years as on 12.8.1980, he approached before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad for conciliation on 3.7.2000 through the secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, of which the petitioner is a member. The Assistant labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad called both the parties for discussion and management and the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and management filed its show cause on 17.10.2000 and the petitioner also filed a rejoinder to the objection on 19.9.2000 and on 19.4.2001 but the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent his failure report to the respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 27.4.2001. The respondent No. 2 refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Tribunal on the ground that age of the petitioner was determined by the Medical Board in 1980 and, therefore, it is not maintainable. It is stated that petitioner for the first time came to know about the change in his date of birth in the year 2000 and he immediately raised dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad in time. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, from perusal of which it appears that the Medical Board constituted in the year 1980 assessed the age of the petitioner as 33 years on 19.12.1980 and accordingly his date of birth comes to 19.12.1947 and the age assessed by the Medical Board in 1980 became final conclusive and binding between the parties and no industrial dispute existed in the year 2000 i.e. after 20 years of medical examination. So far as point formulated in para 3, it is stated that the appropriate Government has a right to refuse to refer the dispute for adjudication on several grounds by forming its own opinion and appropriate Government is not duty bound to refer all disputes for adjudication, which are flimsy, finally, concluded and already decided by way of instances and illustrations. 5. Writ Petition No. 1186/2002 has been preferred by Sri Bhagirath Sharma, Zonal Secretary on behalf of Sri Ram Prasad, Inder Mallah and Moti Chand of Karo Open Cast Mines of M/s Central Coalfields Limited for quashing of the order dated 17.4.1999 (Annexure 4), whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 1 has refused to make a reference of the dispute and has rejected the same. 6. Facts of the case briefly stated are that Sri Ram Prasad. Inder Mallah and Moti Chand had been working as piece rated workmen and they had opted for time rated workmen and as such the respondent No. 2 management had regularized them in time rated workmen but they were not given the pay protection since 1983-84 and during this period they were transferred to different collieries. Inder Mallah and Moti Chand had been working as piece rated workmen and they had opted for time rated workmen and as such the respondent No. 2 management had regularized them in time rated workmen but they were not given the pay protection since 1983-84 and during this period they were transferred to different collieries. It is further stated that on different occasions they had made representations before the respondent No. 2 management but unfortunately no positive step had been taken by the management, so the petitioner union was forced to raise an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh demanding for pay protection since 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 submitted its rely before the conciliation officer on 16.5.1978 and the conciliation officer started the conciliation proceeding but due to adamant attitude of the management the conciliation proceeding ended in failure and the conciliation officer, as per the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act, has submitted its failure report before the Government of India on 28.12.1998. 7. Writ Petition No. 4925/2002 has been preferred by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union through its Secretary Sri D. Mukherjee on behalf of Rajendra Paswan of Dhansar Colliery of appropriate order to the respondent No. 1 to make reference of the dispute, raised by the petitioner regarding illegal and arbitrary superannuation, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. 8. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.2.1973 and at the time of appointment his date of birth was recorded as 16.7.1949 in the statutory Form "B" Register maintained under Section 48 of the Mines Act. The identity card was issued by the management, in which his date of birth was specifically mentioned as 16.7.1949 and in the CMPCF record also the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 16.7.1949 but in the service extract, which was issued to the petitioner, his date of birth was not recorded. It is further stated that though in all the documents his date of birth was recorded as 16.7.1949, still the petitioner was superannuated with effect from April, 2001. It is further stated that though in all the documents his date of birth was recorded as 16.7.1949, still the petitioner was superannuated with effect from April, 2001. It is stated that all of a sudden the management orally informed the petitioner that his date of birth has been changed as 22.4.1941, for which the petitioner objected and represented before the management several times against the illegal and arbitrary changing in his date of birth but without any effect, so the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad on 27.3.2000 management appeared and filed show cause on 23.6.2000 and the conciliation proceeding ultimately ended in failure due to adamant attitude of the management and the conciliation officer submitted its failure report to the secretary on 10.5.2001. The only ground for rejection of the dispute was that the dispute for adjudication was raised by the petitioner at the fag end of retirement by order No. L- 20012/299/2001-IR(C-1) dated 12.9.2001. 9. Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel appeared in all the three writ petitions, in course of his submission, submitted that appropriate Government cannot take a decision whether the dispute raised was fit to be referred to the Tribunal or not because that is a judicial order and that can only be decided by a Labour Court and refusal to refer the dispute raised to a Labour Court is unjustified. In this connection reliance was placed upon , Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar, in which it has been held that Government while considering question whether reference should be made or not cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis. 10. Learned counsel further pointed out that so far Writ Petition Nos. 10. Learned counsel further pointed out that so far Writ Petition Nos. 5177/2002 and 4925/2002 is concerned, both relate to change in the date of birth of the respective petitioner and it was submitted that date of birth once mentioned in Form "B" register cannot be changed and in the instant case all the documents issued prior to the Medical Board show that the date of birth in the case of writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 5177 as 31 years on 18.12.1980 but that has been changed as 33 years on 18.12.1980, whereas in Writ Petition No. 4925/2002, it has been shown to be 16.7.1949 but that has been changed as 22.4.1941 without any notice to the petitioner and when they came to know about the change in their respective dates of birth then they represented before the authorities and even a conciliation proceeding was also taken up but due to adamant attitude of the management the conciliation failed and appropriate Government also refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. It is further submitted that in such a situation there cannot be any change in the date of birth of the petitioners and in this connection reliance was placed upon , wherein it has been held that difference of four years between the date of birth of the employee recorded with company and one as per birth certificate, neither any claim made nor produced by the employee in that regard during service period, delay of two years in making claim after retirement, date of birth certificate unassailed. However, in view of the belated claim it was held that employee would be entitled only to back wages without any interest. Reliance was further placed upon Karu Nomia v. Bharat Coking Coal Lit. and Ors., 2002 (1) JCR 418 (Jhr) : 2002 (1) JLJR 798 , wherein it has been held that date of birth once recorded in statutory form "B" register cannot be changed, if not changed within 10 years from the dated of entry in the service. Such principle is both for the management and the employees, besides date of birth of an employee cannot be changed without any notice and reasonable ground, the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing in service and will get full service for the intervening period. Such principle is both for the management and the employees, besides date of birth of an employee cannot be changed without any notice and reasonable ground, the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing in service and will get full service for the intervening period. Reliance was also placed upon Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 (1) JCR 441 (Jhr) : 2002 (2) JLJR 24 , wherein it has been held that matter will not become stale simply for the reason that there is a little time gap between the cause of action and the steps taken for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner. 11. So far as the case of writ petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1186/2002 is concerned, this is with respect to awarding pay protection since 1983-84. It is submitted that if pay protection is not allowed to the petitioners, they will suffer irreparable loss and such a decision has been taken by the management without any notice to them, although they opted for time rated workmen. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the dispute has been raised at a very late stage and at the fag end of retirement or after retirement and, therefore, the order is based on subjective satisfaction of Government and no lis is involved in refusing to make the reference, reasons have to be given in not making reference and, therefore, reasons have been made that the same has been filed at a belated stage. Reference in this connection may be made to . Reliance was also placed upon 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 598, wherein it was held as follows :-- "4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the medical opinion regarding the age of the respondent-workmen determined by the Medical Board constituted by the management. No objection was raised before the Tribunal regarding the competence of the doctors constituting the Medical Board. We fail to understand how the medical examination by the Civil Surgeon would be different than that of the Medical Board constituted by the management. The findings of the Tribunal are based on surmises and conjecture. No objection was raised before the Tribunal regarding the competence of the doctors constituting the Medical Board. We fail to understand how the medical examination by the Civil Surgeon would be different than that of the Medical Board constituted by the management. The findings of the Tribunal are based on surmises and conjecture. In any case the respondent-workman was told on 3.6.1986 after his medical examination was done by the Board constituted by the management that he was 58 years of age and could be retained in service for two more years. The workman did not challenge the opinion of the Medical Board at that stage. He raised the dispute only after retirement without any jurisdiction." 13. On considering the submissions of both the sides and materials brought on record and also going through the references made on behalf of both the parties, it is clear that in the case of writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 5177/2002, the date of birth of the petitioner after medical opinion was changed in 1980 but dispute for reference was raised at the fag end of retirement. Similarly in the case of writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4925/2002, the matter is same and the dispute regarding age of birth was raised at the fag end of retirement and in the case of writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1186/2002, the dispute regard-Ing awarding pay protection to the petitioner on the ground of change of job from one job to another was raised and not being allowed pay protection from 1983-84, as the same was raised in the year 1998 after 14 years and, therefore, in all these applications, I am of the view that appropriate Government has taken a decision not to make a reference to the lower Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, but that order is not bad in law, since it has been made at a very fag end of service and that should to be considered and has not been considered. 14. In that view of the matter, all these three writ applications are dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to coats.