JUDGMENT A.S.NAIDU, J. : In this Writ application, the petitioner, who was a workman under the EHT (M) Division of Orissa State Elec¬tricity Board, seeks to assail the Award dated 4th June, 1993 (Annexure-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in .ID.Case No.29 of 1989. 2. According to the petitioner, on 1st April, 1963 he was appointed as a Helper in the establishment of opposite party No.2 and was posted at Joda. His service roll had been opened and thereafter in the year 1966 he was transferred to Rourkela in the same capacity as Helper. While serving at Rourkela, he was orally informed that his service roll had missed and he was directed to put his signatures on a duplicate service roll. Being an illiter¬ate, he put his signatures in the duplicate copy of the service roll without knowing the contents thereof. While matter stood thus, on 25th August, 1981 opposite party No.2 called upon him to produce his educational certificates for ascertaining his date of birth. As the petitioner never studied in any school he was not in a position to produce such certificate. However he produced a medical certificate from the Superintendent of Rourkela Govern¬ment Hospital, Rourkela. Being not satisfied with that certifi¬cate the management by letter dated 7th January, 1992 asked the petitioner to appear before the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh to get himself examined and produced certificate in support of his age. It is asserted that in compliance with that direction the petitioner got himself examined by the CDMO and obtained the required certificate which he produced before the management. Surprisingly he was superannuated from 31st July, 1988. According to the petitioner, the certificate of the CDMO revealed that his age was 47 years as on 8.2.1982 and as such he would have retired from service in the year 1993 when he would have attained the age of superannuation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the management, an industrial dispute was raised, but conciliation having failed the Government in the Labour and Employment Department by order dated 27th October, 1989 referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for adjudication : “Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, EHT Division, Rourkela OSEB in superannuating Sri Sadananda Panda, Junior Artisan, on 31.7.88 without considering the proof of age as certified by the Chief Dist. Medical Officer, Sundargarh is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Panda is entitled? “ 3. After receiving notice, opposite party No.2 management filed its written statement before the labour Court taking a specific stand that in the year 1963 the service roll of the petitioner had been opened and the year of his birth was recorded as ‘1930’. The entries made in the service roll were signed by petitioner-workman. He disclosed in his LTC Bill dated 20.4.1981 that he was fifty years’ old by that date. As there was discrep¬ancy with regard to his date of birth, he was called upon to furnish his educational certificate. It was admitted that in consonance with the direction issued the workman got himself examined by the CDMO who determined his age to be 47 years as on 8th February, 1982. It was submitted that as the date of birth had been entered as per Rules 65 and 66 of the OGFR (Vol.I) his age as on 1st July, 1930 was determined and according to the age so determined he was rightly superannuated in the year 1982. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Labour Court framed two issues. To establish their respective cases, the petitioner got himself examined as a witness and the management got one R.Madan Mohan, Executive Engineer, Rourkela as its wit¬ness. The Labour Court after discussing the evidence both oral and documentary and perusing the entries made in the service roll of the petitioner (Ext. 1) as well as the relevant rules came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner as re¬corded in his service roll appeared to be genuine and correct. It did not rely upon the certificate of the CDMO he having not been examined as a witness to prove the certificate purported to have been issued by him. It further held that the contents of the certificate did not indicate the barest norms of tests basing on which the age had been determined and, as such, that could not be accepted. On the basis of such conclusion, the reference was answered in favour of the management and the superannuation of the petitioner with effect from 31.7.1988 was held to be just and proper. On the basis of such conclusion, the reference was answered in favour of the management and the superannuation of the petitioner with effect from 31.7.1988 was held to be just and proper. The said Award of the Labour Court is assailed mainly on the ground that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary; and acted illegally in rejecting the certificate issued by the CDMO with regard to the age of the petitioner. It was further stated that reference to Rules 65 and 66 of the OGFR by the Labour Court in absence of any Cogent material with regard to exact date of birth was illegal. 5. After receiving the Rule, a counter-affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.2 taking the stand that the service roll had been prepared in consonance with Rules 65 and 66 of OGFR and the petitioner had put his signatures thereon acknowledging the same. Thus he cannot take the stand that the entries made in the service roll were not correct. It was further stated that the Labour Court after perusing the materials available arrived at the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner as men¬tioned in the service roll being 1st July, 1930 was correct. The same being a finding of fact, the same does not call for inter¬ference by this Court exercising Writ Jurisdiction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. Admittedly the service roll (Ext.1) reveals the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.7.1930. The’ petitioner himself signed, the said service roll thereby acknowl¬edging the entries therein. On the basis of the entries made in the service roll, he was made to retire in the year 1988. The dispute with regard to the date of birth was raised for the first time in the year 1981 and the petitioner who disputed the said date was called upon to produce his educational certificate in proof of the date of birth which he asserted to be correct, but then he failed to do so. To substantiate his stand that the date of birth entered in the service roll was not correct the peti¬tioner relied upon a certificate issued by the CDMO. The said certificate was not proved before the labour Court, nor the CDMO was examined as a witness. To substantiate his stand that the date of birth entered in the service roll was not correct the peti¬tioner relied upon a certificate issued by the CDMO. The said certificate was not proved before the labour Court, nor the CDMO was examined as a witness. The Labour Court after perusing the certificate observed that the same did not indicate the norms of tests basing upon which the age of the petitioner had been deter¬mined. In absence of examination of the CDMO who said to have granted the certificate as a witness and his statement as to the method adopted by him for determining the age, the Tribunal rightly discarded the said certificate. 7. Law is well settled that determination of date of birth is a disputed question of fact which cannot be effectually adju¬dicated under Writ Jurisdiction. Therefore after perusing the materials and going through the impugned Award of the Labour Court this Court feels that the said Award does not call for any interference under Writ Jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly this Court dismisses the Writ application. However this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to establish his age by filing a suit if so advised in which event the con¬cerned Court shall decide the same on the basis of the materials produced I without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. Application dismissed.