Judgment :- The petitioner was working in the Sinchona Department of the respondent Corporation. When the petitioner was informed that he will retire from the services on 30.06.1993 as he will be reaching age of superannuation, viz., 60 years, the petitioner disputed the same and thereafter raised an individual dispute with the help of Tamil Nadu Plantation Workers Union, Valparai affiliated to AITUC. 2. The said dispute was taken on file on being referred by the Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court took up the dispute on its file as I.D.No.94 of 1994. The said dispute was tried along with another dispute relating to another workman. The contention of the petitioner was that at the time of joining, wrong date of birth has been entered and he was actually born on 05.07.1947 as indicated by the record produced from the school in which he had studied. He also states that his elder brother was also in service and therefore, he should not be retired. Since the Management did not accept the same, the dispute was raised. 3. Before the Labour Court, the respondent Management took up the stand that as per clause 14(II) of the Certified Standing Orders, the age entered in the service register will be taken as the age for retirement . The said register is also an official register maintained by the Plantation which was inspected by the Inspector of Plantation and countersigned periodically and the same cannot be questioned. Further contention was raised that during the year 1987, the petitioner met with an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and he claimed compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and his case was tried before the Commissioner as W.C.No.88 of 1987. 4. In that compensation application, though the petitioner had described himself as 40 years, but it was disputed by the respondent Management and it was contended that at the relevant time he was 54 years. This was accepted by the Commissioner, in calculating the compensation. When the compensation was paid, the petitioner never disputed the said compensation amount and the multiplier adopted by the Commissioner. Therefore, he cannot at the tail end of his service claim for alteration of date of birth as entered in the Register. 5. This was accepted by the Commissioner, in calculating the compensation. When the compensation was paid, the petitioner never disputed the said compensation amount and the multiplier adopted by the Commissioner. Therefore, he cannot at the tail end of his service claim for alteration of date of birth as entered in the Register. 5. The Labour Court accepted the stand of the respondent and held that if he was having any school certificate, the same should have been given at an early point of time and not at the time when he is about to be superannuated. The Labour Court also referred to certain decisions of the Courts to say that any claim made at the tail end of service cannot be accepted and rejected the dispute raised by the workman. 6. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. No costs.