ORDER Seeking quashing of award dated 13.11.2007 in Reference Case No. 03 of 2004 whereby the Labour Court has held that, the date of birth of respondent-workman is 07.04.1949 instead of 01.07.1947 and the respondent-workman is entitled to wages with all benefits from 01.07.2005 to 30.07.2007, the petitioner-IFICO Refrectories Plant has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts stated in the writ petition are that, the respondent-workman was appointed on 13.03.1968 and his age was recorded in E.P.F. Form2 on 26.03.1969 as 22 years and accordingly, his date of birth was recorded in the office record as 01.07.1947. Subsequently, in the medical card, the respondent-workman got his date of birth mentioned as 1949. After a lapse of about 26 years, the respondent-workman raised dispute on 18.04.2002 for correction of his date of birth. The matter was referred vide order dated 17.03.2004 for adjudication of dispute before the Labour Court, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Reference Case No. 03 of 2004. The Management examined 5 witnesses and the Union examined 7 witnesses in support of the case of the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman examined himself as witness no. 5 and he admitted that he submitted his school living certificate in the year, 1993. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the workman himself declared his age to be 22 years in his E.P.F. Form2 which bears the signature of the respondent-workman. No reliance can be placed on the medical treatment card as, a blank card is issued to the employees and the concerned employee himself fills up the card. The date of birth of the workman mentioned in the medical treatment card is the manipulated date of birth. Since, the dispute with respect to date of birth was raised after a period of about 26 years of joining the service, it could not have been adjudicated by the Labour Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the admit card issued by Bihar School Examination Board which was submitted by the respondent-workman to the Management bears the date of birth of the respondent-workman as 07.04.1949. The respondent-workman was all along under the impression that in the Service Book his date of birth is recorded as 07.04.1949. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the admit card issued by Bihar School Examination Board which was submitted by the respondent-workman to the Management bears the date of birth of the respondent-workman as 07.04.1949. The respondent-workman was all along under the impression that in the Service Book his date of birth is recorded as 07.04.1949. The medical card issued on 29.04.1968 also bears the date of birth of the respondent-workman as 1949. In the E.S.I. Medical card issued in the year, 1969, the date of birth of the respondent-workman is recorded as 1949. The Management for the first time in the year, 1994 issued pay slip bearing the date of birth of the respondent-employee as 01.07.1947 and the respondent-workman immediately lodged the protest on 20.07.1994. The workman again submitted representation on 21.10.1994 and submitted the admit card issued on 08.02.1966 by the Bihar School Examination Board. When the representation of the respondent-workman was not looked into, he came before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1706 of 2001 which was disposed of by directing the Management to take a decision on the representation of the respondent-workman. The Committee constituted by the Management took note of the false and fabricated provident fund document which the workman had never signed and thus, came to wrong conclusion that the age of the respondent-workman was 22 years, as on 26.03.1969. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. A perusal of the documents on record indicates that the petitioner-IFICO Refractories Plant has relied on E.P.F. Form2 in which the date of birth of the respondent-workman has been recorded as 22 years on 26.03.1969 whereas, the respondent-workman has relied on medical card issued on 29.04.1969 and E.S.I. medical card issued in the year, 1969. The respondent-workman has also produced the admit-card issued on 08.02.1966 by the Bihar School Examination Board. The respondent-workman has denied that he signed the said E.P.F. Form. On the basis of the documentary evidence, the respondent-workman has claimed his date of birth as 07.04.1949. The learned Labour Court, upon consideration of the materials on record, found the date of birth of the respondent-workman as 07.04.1949. 8. The respondent-workman has denied that he signed the said E.P.F. Form. On the basis of the documentary evidence, the respondent-workman has claimed his date of birth as 07.04.1949. The learned Labour Court, upon consideration of the materials on record, found the date of birth of the respondent-workman as 07.04.1949. 8. It further appears that the cause of action for raising a dispute with respect to the date of birth arose for the first time in the year, 1994 and the workman immediately lodged a protest on 20.07.1994. A further representation was submitted on 21.10.1994 and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-workman sought rectification in date of birth at the fag end of his service. In “Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P Power Corporation Ltd.”, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 80 , it has been held that, “an employee may take action as is permissible in law only after coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the employer.” 9. While considering a challenge to the award of a Tribunal, the Writ Court is required to keep in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate court. In “Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan” reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 , Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus, 7. “.............There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. ….............................................................. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. ….............................................................. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised”. 10. The Labour Court in Award dated 13.11.2007 has considered the evidence brought on record and after a careful consideration reached a conclusion that the date of birth of the respondent-workman is 07.04.1949. I do not find any infirmity in the Award dated 13.11.2007. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.