JUDGMENT By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - employer has questioned the judgment dated 07.07.2003 delivered by Respondent No. 1 - Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No. 55 of 2002. This Court has on 30.07.2003, while issueing rule in the matter, granted ad interim relief and that relief continues to operate even today. 2. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No. 1. Nobody has appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. The short contention of Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner employer is, Respondent No. 2 entered the service in 1970 as a Peon and on that day, his date of birth was recorded as 15.07.1944. Approximately 30 years thereafter, he moved an application for correctingit as 15.06.1947 and the then incumbent functioning as District Health Officer (Petitioner No.2) allowed that request and carried out necessary correction. When Petitioner No. 1 sought to retire Respondent No.2 on attaining the age of 58 years, he questioned it before the Industrial Court with contention that his recorded date of birth was 15.06.1947 and hence he could not have been retired at that juncture. The learned Member of Industrial Court has considered this controversy and found that date of birth initially recorded as 15.07.1944 was later on corrected to read as 15.06.1947 and hence the said correction could not have been defeated and employer should not have switched back to earlier date without further enquiry in the matter. The Industrial Court, therefore, has quashed and set aside the notice of retirement dated 10.08.2001 and has directed the employer to conduct enquiry and thereafter only to take necessary steps. According to him, the entire approach of Respondent No. 1 in the matter is contrary to settled law and there is no material before the Industrial Court to quash and set aside the notice of retirement. He further contends that in any case, Industrial Court ought to have seen that the employee could have been compensated even later on if after enquiry his date of birth was found to be 15.06.1947. He relies upon the provisions of Rule 38 of Maharashtra (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, to urge that such change made after 30 years by an officer - petitioner No.2 could not have been acted upon by the Industrial Court. 4. Mrs. He relies upon the provisions of Rule 38 of Maharashtra (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, to urge that such change made after 30 years by an officer - petitioner No.2 could not have been acted upon by the Industrial Court. 4. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 states that it is a private dispute between the petitioners and Respondent No.2 and Respondent No. 1 has adjudicated upon it as per material produced and assistance received. 5. After hearing respective counsel, I find that when Respondent No.2 entered the service on 21.07.1970, his date of birth was recorded as 15.07.1944. He moved an application on 15.09.2000 with some documents for its alteration and the District Health Officer allowed that application and corrected the date of birth as 15.06.1947. Respondent No.2 being workman under Zilla Parishad, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad is his employer. Therefore, if he wanted any such correction or clarification, the representation should have been addressed to Chief Executive Officer and not to a subordinate officer like District Health Officer. 6. The material on the basis of which change was effected has not been produced by Respondent No. 2 before the Industrial Court. He has only capitalized on the fact of change and contended that once the date of birth was altered, earlier date of birth could not have been looked into. Respondent No. 1 Industrial Court has accepted this contention. The application of mind by Industrial Court, therefore, cannot be said to be correct in this situation. 7. Before the Industrial Court, there were two date of births. First one as 15.07.1944 and it was supplied by Respondent No.2 himself while entering in the service on 21.07.1970. He sought change therein on 15.09.2000 i.e. more than 30 years. The changed date was 15.06.1947 and Industrial Court has failed to note that said date was not changed by an order of the employer but by an order of the District Health Officer. It was, therefore, necessary for the Industrial Court and obligatory for Respondent No. 2 - workman to show material on the basis of which he had sought that change. That material has not been produced by Respondent No.2 before the Industrial Court at all. It was, therefore, necessary for the Industrial Court and obligatory for Respondent No. 2 - workman to show material on the basis of which he had sought that change. That material has not been produced by Respondent No.2 before the Industrial Court at all. The Industrial Court has not considered any such material and it has not recorded a finding that date initially recorded was incorrect and 15.06.1947 was the only correct date of birth. In this situation, I find merit in the contention of Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and also there is jurisdictional error. 8. The said judgment is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Complaint ULP No. 55 of 2002 as filed is, therefore, dismissed. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Ordered Accordingly.