Order In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 5.3.03 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal NO.2, Dhanbad whereby learned Tribunal has answered the reference in affirmative and directed the Management to assess the age of the concerned workman Smt. Champa Kamin at the fag end of her service. 2. The said workman was appointed as Miner Loader at Tetulmari Colliery on 20.1.1973. At the time of her appointment she had declared her date of birth as 6.7.1942, which was entered in the service record of the Company in the statutory Form-B Register. 3. There was no variation and alteration in the entry of date of birth of the concerned workman at any point of time, in any record of the Company. Suddenly in the year 1998 the concerned workman raised a dispute complaining that her date of birth was not correctly entered in the service record and the date mentioned in the record is without any basis and knowledge of the concerned workman, who is an illiterate lady. 4. On failure report, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad under the provisions of Section 10(1 )(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The concerned workman and the Management appeared and filed their respective written statements before the Tribunal. In the written statement filed on behalf of the workman, it was reiterated that at the time of entry in the services her date of birth was not correctly recorded. She was illiterate and could not know the entry. There was no basis for recording her date of birth as 6.7.1942. 6. The Management in their written statement, inter alia, stated that the date of birth was recorded at the time of appointment of the concerned workman Smt. Champa Kamin on her declaration, as far back as on 20.1.1973. The date of birth as declared by her was well within the knowledge of the concerned workman and was recorded as such in the statutory Form-B' Register, service excerpts and other documents. No objection was ever raised by her at any point of time earlier. The management has not made any variation in the date of birth and there was no occasion for raising any dispute with regard to the said entry of the date of birth. 7. Both the parties led evidences in support of their contentions. No objection was ever raised by her at any point of time earlier. The management has not made any variation in the date of birth and there was no occasion for raising any dispute with regard to the said entry of the date of birth. 7. Both the parties led evidences in support of their contentions. 8. Learned Tribunal on conclusion of hearing rendered the impugned award answering the reference in favour of the concerned workman and holding that the action of the Management of Colliery of M/s BCCL, in' recording the date of birth of 8mt. Champa Kamin as 6.7.1942, without getting her age medically assessed by the medical authorities, is not justified. He directed the Management to get the age of the concerned workman assessed through the Apex Medical Board within three months from the date of publication of the award in the Gazette of India. 9. In this writ petition the impugned award has been assailed by the petitioner mainly on the following grounds: (i) The finding recorded by learned Tribunal is contrary to the facts, materials and the provisions of law and the same is not sustainable. (ii) Learned Tribunal has recorded its finding that the Management of the concerned colliery got the date of birth of Smt. Champa Kamin recorded as 6.7.1942 without getting her age medically assessed by the Medical Authority without considering that occasion for determination of age or date of birth by any Medical Authority, arises only when there is any controversy regarding the same. (iii) Learned Tribunal has referred to and erroneously relied on the Implemention Instruction No. 76 to hold that in case of determination of age or date of birth of an illiterate person, the age has to be determined by the Medical Board. By Implementation Instruction No. 76, the provision has been made for determination of age. The said provision, inter alia, provides for review/determination of age or date of birth in respect of the employees. Clause B(ii) of the said Instruction No. 76 clearly provides that when there is no variation in the record, such case cannot be reopened for review unless there is a very glaring and appellant wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. Clause B(ii) of the said Instruction No. 76 clearly provides that when there is no variation in the record, such case cannot be reopened for review unless there is a very glaring and appellant wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. (iv) In the instant case, the concerned workman has not complained any variation in the records, inasmuch as she has also not disclosed a definite or any other date of birth. (v) The only demand of the concerned workman is for reassessment of her age by a Medical Board which cannot be a ground for reviewing the age or date of birth recorded in the statutory register and service record. (vi) The date of birth i.e. 6.7.1942 declared by her in 1973 at the time of her appointment was challenged for the first time after about 25 years, while coming close to her retirement. There is no such provision allowing a workman to challenge the entry of date of birth on the ground it has challenged, at the fag end of the service or after such long lapse of time. (vii) The concerned workman has not made out any case of glaring mistake nor there was any clinching material conclusive in nature before learned Tribunal for coming to the said conclusion and answering the reference in favour of the concerned workman and to issue such direction to the employer for referring the concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board for determining her date of birth. (viii) The impugned award of the Tribunal is not sound and sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel in course of his argument supported the said grounds and referred to and relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of U.P & Anr. vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, reported in 2005(6) SCC 49 in order to fortify his submissions. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, on the other hand, submitted that though there is no alteration in the date of birth recorded in the service records of the concerned workman, the entry at the time of her appointment should have been made on the basis 01 assessment of age by a Medical Board, as she was an illiterate lady. Being an illiterate, she was not in a position to declare her date of birth correctly. Being an illiterate, she was not in a position to declare her date of birth correctly. A entry made on such declaration is not proper and legal. Learned counsel submitted that in case of an illiterate person, the date of birth/age has to be assessed by the Medical Officer as required under sub-clause 3 of Clause 37.0 of the Certified Standing Order of the Company. The Management also acted contrary to the provisions laid down in the Implementation Instruction No. 76. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kamta Pandey vs. M/s BCCL & Ors. reported in 2007(3) JLJR 726 and contended that the statutory Register-B cannot be said to be conclusive if there are other evidences showing different date of birth. Such incorrect entry with regard to the date of birth can be corrected even subsequently, if it is found that the same was not recorded in accordance with the legal provisions or in accordance with the Implementation Instruction No. 76. He also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in G.M. BCCL VS. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 72 to show that the burden is heavy on the employer who comes to the Court to prove that the date of birth in the service records maintained by the employer is incorrect. It has been argued that in the instant case also the burden of proof was on the Management to show that the date of birth was correctly entered in the Form B Register at the time of appointment of Smt. Champa Kamin. The dispute has also not been raised at the fag end of service, but four years prior to the superannuation of the concerned workman. The Management arbitrarily and illegally recorded the concerned workman's date of birth as 6.7.1942 without her knowledge. Learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects and has rightly answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman on proper appreciation of the facts, material and the provisions of law. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned award. And this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts, materials and the provisions of law placed on behalf of the respective parties. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned award. And this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts, materials and the provisions of law placed on behalf of the respective parties. On perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that learned Tribunal in its finding has held that there is no dispute that the Form-B Register is a statutory register and is binding on the employer and employee. However, it can be said to be binding when the entries are made properly within the knowledge of the workman. The concerned workman is an illiterate lady. She alleged that the Management has recorded her date of birth on their own. The onus was on the Management to establish that the date of birth/age of the concerned workman was recorded either on the basis of the papers submitted by her or on the basis of the report of the Medical Board and that the contents thereof were read over and explained to her and to that effect necessary endorsement was made. The Management failed to establish the basis on which the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 6.7.1942. On the said consideration, learned Tribunal held that the claim of the concerned workman stands on sound footing and her age should be 3ssessedby the Apex Medical Board. 13. In the State of U.P & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the date of birth once recorded in the service records cannot be lightly interfered with by the Court or the Tribunal unless a glaring case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong cording of his date of birth in his service book. (emphasis supplied) 14. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong cording of his date of birth in his service book. (emphasis supplied) 14. In the instant case the dispute regarding the wrong entry of date of birth has been raised after about 25 years, and according to the petitioner, before four years of her retirement. The said dispute raised at the fag end of service cannot be said to be raised within a reasonable time which is an essential requirement as per the said law laid down by the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. 15. It is not the case of the concerned workman that any alteration has been made in the entry relating to her date of birth by the employer. Reliance has been placed on Clause 37.0 of the Certified Standing Order of the Company in support of her claim. On perusal of the said provision, I find that in the very open. ing line, it has been made clear that at the time of entry in the service, the workman has to disclose his real date of birth. The workman, on demand, has to produce the documents in support of the declaration regarding the date of birth. The said provision does not make it incumbent on the employer to refer an illiterate person to the Apex Medical "Board for determination of his/her age before recording the same in the service record. The provision of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the Company, inter alia, provides for determination/verification of the age of the employees at the time of appointment and for subsequent review. The concerned workman has sought review of the entry made in the service: Records. Clause B (II) of the said instruction provides for review/ reopening and correction of date of birth. The said Clause B(ii) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 runs thus:- "Wherever there is variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board." 16. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board." 16. The said provision clearly provides that if there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of this Court in Kamta Pandey case (supra) in support of his contention that the Statutory Form-B Register is not conclusive and the entry of the date of birth can be altered/corrected if there are other evidence. In that case, the workman had passed Board Matriculation Examination before his appointment and entry in the service. But contrary to the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate, an imaginary date of birth was entered in the Form-B register. The Full Bench after considering the provisions for review under Implementation Instruction No. 76 and a number of decisions on the point and other facts and circumstances concluded, thus: "the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III". 17. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case there was variation in the entry and there is no such certificate to falsify the entry of the date of birth in the statutory service record. In G.lwl. S.C.C.L. (supra), it has been held that the date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but also for the employer. On the length of service put in by the employee depends on the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, while determining the dispute in such matters, the Courts should bear in mind that a change of the date of birth long after joining service, particularly, when the service records are maintained in due course of administration, should not generally be accepted. In such a case the burden is heavy on the employee who comes to the Court with the case that the date of birth in the service record maintained by the employer is untrue and incorrect. In such a case the burden is heavy on the employee who comes to the Court with the case that the date of birth in the service record maintained by the employer is untrue and incorrect. The burden can be discharged only by producing acceptable evidence of a clinching nature. The Court further held that the Court is constrained to make this observation because it is found that in a large number of cases, employees who are on the verge of retirement raise a dispute regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record and the Courts are inclined to pass an interim order regarding the correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record. The said decision of the Supreme Court does not in any way help the respondent and on the contrary, the same supports the stand taken by the Management-petitioner. 18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I find that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error and has rendered an erroneous award by applying the principle of onus of proof wrongly and shifting the same on the Management to prove that the date of birth recorded in the service record was proper and legal. Learned Tribunal also ignored the fact that the concerned workman did not dispute the entry of date of birth for about 25 years and raised the said dispute at the fag end of service, when only about four years remained to retire. The impugned award of learned Tribunal is in direct conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in the State 01 U.P & Anr. vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (supra) and is unsustainable in law. The same is, hereby, set aside., This writ petition is allowed. 19. However, there is no order as to costs.