Judgment 1. Aggrieved by award dated 03.11.2008 in Reference No. 130 of 2000 whereby the superannuation of the respondent workman with effect from 18.12.1998 has been held not justified, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s B.C.C.L. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are summarized thus: The respondent workman was initially employed in National Coal Development Corporation Limited on 10.12.1962 and in the service register his age is recorded as 24 years as on 18.12.1962. Subsequently, service of the respondent workman was transferred to the B.C.C.L. at Moonidih Colliery Area and on the basis of the service register of the respondent workman with the National Coal Development Corporation Limited, another service book was opened by the M/s B.C.C.L. in which the age of the respondent workman was recorded 24 years as on 18.12.1962. The said service excerpts was circulated to the respondent workman who signed the same on 25.06.1987. Vide letter dated 16/19.01.1998 the petitioner was informed that he would superannuate with effect from 18.12.1998. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2000. The Industrial Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the respondent workman vide award dated 03.11.2008. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent workman stating that he produced the School Leaving Certificate dated 12.05.1976 to the Management. Accordingly, the Management issued Identity Card to the respondent workman in which his date of birth was recorded as 01.02.1944. It is also stated that when the petitioner was employed with National Coal Development Corporation Limited his age was recorded as 24 years as on 18.12.1962 on the basis of doctor's report however, the said report was never produced before the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, age record in the service register of National Coal Development Corporation Limited could not have been taken into account. It is further stated that the Management has manipulated the record in as much as, in the service excerpts of the respondent workman interpolation has been found by the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Tribunal seriously erred in law in entertaining the reference relating to the dispute of date of birth/age of the respondent workman which was raised at the fag end of the service. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Tribunal seriously erred in law in entertaining the reference relating to the dispute of date of birth/age of the respondent workman which was raised at the fag end of the service. Relying on the School Leaving Certificate which was never marked as exhibit during the trial, the Industrial Tribunal recorded a finding in favour of the respondent workman, which cannot sustain the scrutiny in law. It is further submitted that respondent workman was circulated service excerpts of M/s B.C.C.L which he signed on 25.06.1987 without raising any objection and therefore, it is binding on the respondent workman. 6. It is well settled that in so far as, the dispute with respect to age of an employee is concerned, an employee can raise the same on the basis of the undisputed documentary evidence however, such dispute can be raised within a reasonable time. It is also well settled that at the fag end of the service, a dispute with respect to date of birth/age of an employee cannot be entertained by the Tribunal/Court. 7. In “State of T.N. Versus T.V. Venugopalan”, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : 7.“.....This Court had, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register.......” 8. In “State of U.P. and Others versus Gulaichi (Smt)”, reported in (2003)6 SCC 483 , a case in which the employee applied for correction of date of birth as recorded in service book at the verge of retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 9. “.......Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. “.......Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. 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 recording of his date of birth, in his service book.............” 9. The respondent workman submitted School Leaving Certificate dated 12.05.1976 in which his date of birth is recorded as 01.02.1944. The Management issued identity card which also contained his date of birth 32 years as on 01.01.1977. The Management circulated Combined Seniority List on 28.12.1989 and 27.12.1990 however date of birth of the respondent workman was not shown in the said seniority list. In the seniority list dated 25.01.1995 and 09.05.1995, the date of birth of the respondent workman was shown as 01.02.1944. The Management took a plea that School Leaving Certificate produced by the respondent workman appeared to be a fake document in as much as, the service excerpts circulated in the year, 1987 and duly filled by the respondent workman does not mention the School Leaving Certificate dated 12.05.1976. Between 1976 to 1987 that is, for about 11 years the respondent did not raise objection to the date of birth recorded in the service excerpts. The Labour Court has taken note of the identity card and seniority list dated 26.01.1990. The Labour Court has recorded that though, in Ext. M1 prepared by the Management of the NCDCL on 12.01.1963 the age of the respondent workman is recorded as 24 years on 18.12.1962 as per the doctor's report however, the doctor's report has not been produced by the management. 10. The Labour Court has recorded that though, in Ext. M1 prepared by the Management of the NCDCL on 12.01.1963 the age of the respondent workman is recorded as 24 years on 18.12.1962 as per the doctor's report however, the doctor's report has not been produced by the management. 10. I find that copies of service register of National Coal Development Corporation Limited and service excerpts of M/s B.C.C.L signed on 25.06.1987 by the workman were marked as exhibits however, the School Leaving Certificate dated 12.05.1976 produced by the respondent workman was not marked in Reference No. 130 of 2000. It further appears that the respondent workman was intimated that he would superannuate with effect from 18.12.1998 and in this regard when a communication dated 16/19.01.1998 was made to the respondent workman, the workman raised an industrial dispute. I am of the opinion that at this stage, the Industrial Tribunal could not have gone into merits of the matter and answered the reference in favour of the workman, ignoring the documentary evidence which were not denied by the respondent workman such as, service record of the National Coal Development Corporation Limited and service excerpts dated 25.06.1987. The Tribunal has erroneously placed reliance on the identity card and the seniority list. The Tribunal also erred in law in raising an adverse presumption against the Management for not producing the doctor's report. It is not the case of the respondent workman that the doctor's report was incorrect and thus, his age recorded on the basis of the said doctor's report was not his actual age. The persons who issued the identity card and who prepared the seniority list were not examined by the workman and thus, it cannot be ascertained how a different age of the workman was recorded in those documents. The respondent workman has not denied his signature on the service excerpts of NCDCL and BCCL and those documents were never challenged by the workman. It is apparent that the dispute was raised by the respondent workman only at the fag end of the service. 11. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that award dated 03.11.2008 suffers from serious infirmity and is liable to be interfered by this Court and accordingly, award dated 03.11.2008 is setaside. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1695 of 2014 and I.A. No. 1103 of 2009 also stand disposed of.