JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The award dated 30.7.2007 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.99 of 1997 is under challenged in this writ petition. 2. The dispute revolves regarding the date of birth of the workman and on account of discrepancy in the date of birth when he has been superannuated vide management letter dated 8.3.1994 w.e.f. 28.2.1994, the dispute has been raised by him and on the basis of the dispute, conciliation having been failed, Reference has been made for its adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The appropriate Government has made the following reference:- “Whether the action of the management of Balangi Ores Mines, Raw Material Division, SAIL, P.O. Bolangir, Dist. Keonjhar in superannuating Sri Manoranjan Mohanty vide management’s letter dated 8.3.94 w.e.f. 28.2.1994 was justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 3. The fact leading to this case is that date of birth of the workman has been recorded in Form-B register as 17.5.1937 but in the identity card issued by the management date of birth was mentioned as 17.5.1938 and in order to avoid discrepancy the workman had made representation on 15.3.1994 to the management when the management superannuated him with retrospective effect from 28.2.1994 by its order dated 8.3.1994 by saying that he has illegally been superannuated since he was to continue in service till 16.5.1998 as per the provision of certified standing orders of the company. It is further case of the workman that initially he was appointed by M/s Bird & Co. on daily wage basis and was confirmed. Subsequently, Bolani Ores Mines was taken over by the SAIL on 29.12.1978, so the employees of Bolanni Ores Mines were transferred to the control of the SAIL. On the basis of the representation of the workman, the management sent the workman for medical examination for assessment of his age at I.G.H. Rourkela where it was assessed the date of birth was in the year 1940 and he should have continued service till 1998 but the management deliberately suppressed this fact and prayer has been made by the workman to reinstate him with full back wages till he reaches his superannuation on 28.5.1998. Case of the opposite party-management is that the workman was superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years as per the provision of the service conditions of the employees. Case of the opposite party-management is that the workman was superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years as per the provision of the service conditions of the employees. On 10.7.1959 the medical examination of the workman was done for the first time wherein his age was assessed by the medical officer as 23 years at that time. Once his service was terminated for his misconduct w.e.f. 28.12.1962 but again he was engaged w.e.f. 1.2.1963 and as per the procedure he was referred for medical examination wherein his age was assessed as 27 years vide medical report dated 5.2.1963. On the basis of that report the workman was superannuated on 28.2.1994 on attaining the age of 58 years. According to the management, the workman has been superannuated on the basis of the opinion of the Medical expert on attaining the age of 58 years, hence it has been prayed to reject the claim of the workman. 4. On the basis of the factual background, the Industrial Tribunal in order to answer the reference has formulated the following three issues:- I. Whether the reference is maintainable ? II. Whether the action of the management of Bolani Ores Mines, in superannuating Sri Manoranjan Mohanty vide management’s letter dt.8.3.94 w.e.f. 28.2.94 was justified ? III. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? 5. In order to prove their cases the management has examined one witness and the workman has been examined in this case. From perusal of the award it is evident that the workman has relied on the medical examination report prepared by medical board on 29.12.38 on which date he was examined and taking his age on that date as 55 years, his date of birth has been calculated as 29.12.1938 but the management challenges this report on the ground that his name was recommended by an officer of the management for medical examination for which that officer was reprimanded and transferred. The workman in his deposition has proved his representation dated 19.2.87 vide Ext.1 to record his date of birth as 29.5.1940 and thereafter he received a letter from the Manager, Personal vide Ext.2 to attend the medical board at I.G.H. on 29.12.1993 which he attended, whereby and where under date of birth has been mentioned as 17.5.1938 but however, the medical examination in the year 1959 and 1963 has been denied by the workman. He also admits that no educational certificate was produced at the time of his joining in service. He also admits that at the time of joining in service he has not mentioned his age, date of birth and had not filed any document regarding his age and as per the policy of the management he was referred to medical officer of the company and Ext.B is the medical report dated 10.7.1959 and subsequently his service was terminated and again he was given appointment on 1.2.1962 and again as per the policy of the company he appeared before the medical officer for determination of his age, Ext.D is the medical report dated 5.2.1963, he proved the relevant page of Form-B register vide Ext.E. Thus, the Industrial Tribunal after going into detail has found that the first medical examination report dt.10.7.1959 vide Ext.B and according to the claimant his date of birth falls on 10.7.1936. In the second medical report vide Ext.B his date of birth was calculated as 5.2.1936 and fixing this date i.e. 5.2.1936 as his date of birth, he has been superannuated from service w.e.f. 28.2.1994. 6. After going through the award in detail, it is found that there are three dates of birth, first date of birth is mentioned in Form-B i.e. 17.5.1937, second is Ext.E by which date of birth falls on 10.7.1936 and third on the basis of the second medical examination it was found as 5.2.1936 and as such the Industrial Tribunal has placed reliance upon the first medical report wherein date of birth of the workmen has been recorded as 10.7.1936 vide Ext.E and on the basis of that since the workman has been superannuated, hence we found no justification to interfere with the decision of the manage. There is no dispute about the fact that the date of birth recorded in Form-B is authentic document if the entry made in Form-B must be based upon some document like school transfer certificate or matriculation certificate, but from the evidence we gathered that the petitioner has not produced any such document at the time of joining, but the date of birth has been recorded in Form-B without any basis. It is the petitioner who has created confusion by making representation to make necessary correction of the date of birth, on the basis of his representation he was directed to go for medical examination and accordingly his date of birth has been found by the medical expert as 10.7.1936, again second time it was found as 5.2.1936. Thus, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the report of the medical officer vide Ext.E since this is the first official document showing date of birth of the workman and as such this has been taken as the date of the birth of the workman and accordingly the Tribunal has answered the reference by negating the decision of the authority to superannuate w.e.f. 28.2.1994 and it has been made with effect from 31.7.1994 taking 10.7.1936 as the date of birth of the workman. Since the management has relied upon official document i.e. report given by the medical officer in this regard, hence we are of the conscious view that date of birth of the workman has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal. 7. Considering the fact that the award has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant document and opinion of the medical expert and as such we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.