JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for petitioner Corporation and Mr. Raval, learned advocate for respondent workman. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 23.03.2010 passed by learned Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 256 of 1999 whereby learned Tribunal held that the correct date of birth of the claimant is 06.11.1942 and not 06.11.1941 as recorded in the service record of the workman. Having reached the said findings of fact, learned Tribunal directed the Corporation to treat the retirement/superannuation of the claimant effective from 30.11.2000 instead of 30.11.1999 and to pay salary, allowances and pensionary benefits accordingly. 2. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the submission by learned advocate for petitioner-Corporation that the respondent-original claimant was employed by the Corporation with effect from 04.09.1972 and at the relevant time he was working as Storekeeper-cum-Accountant. 2.1 The Corporation had recorded 06.11.1941 as the date of birth of the claimant. 2.2 By considering the said date of birth as correct date of birth, the petitioner Corporation relieved the respondent- original claimant from service on the ground of superannuation in November, 1999. 2.3 It appears that somewhere in October, 1981, the Corporation has issued a Circular and instructed all employees of the Corporation that those employees who joined the service prior to 1981 and desire any correction in their service record, more particularly with regard to date of birth mentioned in the service record, may submit appropriate application for alteration in date of birth, within period of 6 months. 2.4 It appears that present respondent failed to submit application within time limit prescribed by the said Circular and subsequently somewhere in 1996, the claimant approached the Corporation with a request for appropriate correction/alteration in the birth date from 06.11.1941 to 06.11.1942. 2.5 The Corporation did not accept the request and conveyed its decision to the claimant vide communication dated 02.12.1996. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Corporation and also feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation of relieving him from service in November, 1999 on the premise that he completed 58 years of age in November, 1999, the claimant raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to learned Tribunal. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Corporation and also feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation of relieving him from service in November, 1999 on the premise that he completed 58 years of age in November, 1999, the claimant raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to learned Tribunal. 2.7 After receiving evidence from both sides and after considering rival contentions, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of the claimant workman is 06.11.1942 and not the date which is mentioned in the record of the Corporation i.e. 06.11.1941. 2.8 In view of the said conclusion by learned Tribunal, the award came to be passed with above mentioned direction. 3. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for Corporation assailed the impugned award and submitted that though opportunity was granted to all employees vide general Circular issued by the Corporation to get any alteration/correction in the record carried out by making appropriate application, the respondent had not taken any step at the relevant time and that, therefore, his grievance and demand which was raised at belated stage was unjustified and that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the said vital aspect and committed error in passing the impugned award and impugned direction. Mr. Munshaw submitted that a specific Circular was issued in July, 1981 and 6 months time was granted to the employee for getting correction/alteration carried out in the service record. However, the claimant did not avail that opportunity and woke up as late as in 1996 i.e. few years before the date on which he was about to retire on superannuation as per existing record and that, therefore, such request was not considered by the Corporation. He submitted the decision of the Corporation could not have been considered illegal and arbitrary and should not have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal. However, learned Tribunal ignored the said aspect and passed the impugned award and, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. Mr. Munshaw also submitted that details in the service record with reference to the date of birth was recorded on the basis of School Leaving Certificate of the claimant and that, therefore, there is no justification in impugned award and impugned direction. 4. Mr. Raval learned advocate for claimant opposed the submissions by Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for Corporation. Mr. Munshaw also submitted that details in the service record with reference to the date of birth was recorded on the basis of School Leaving Certificate of the claimant and that, therefore, there is no justification in impugned award and impugned direction. 4. Mr. Raval learned advocate for claimant opposed the submissions by Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for Corporation. He submitted that learned Tribunal has recorded findings of the facts which are based on cogent evidence, documentary as well as oral, available on record, therefore, petition may be rejected. 5. I have considered rival submissions by learned advocates for petitioner-Corporation and the respondent-workman and I have also considered material available on record impugned award. 6. The award is challenged only on one ground viz. Delay in raising the dispute. 6.1 It is a fact that claimant woke up after long delay. Mr. Munshaw claimed that respondent woke up after 24 years. However, the fact remains that while considering rival contentions and the material available on record, learned Tribunal has recorded satisfactory reasons and justification in support of its final decision. The reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on and supported by documentary and oral evidence which are available on record. In this context, it is worthwhile to take into account the discussion by the learned Tribunal in impugned award. In Para-9 to 17 of award, learned Tribunal has recorded that: "9. The reason for rejection of the applicants Ex. 45 and 50 of the workman, however, was not, that he did not apply in 1981 and had applied in 1996 after sixteen years. Let us have a look through the applications of the workman dated 06.05.1996 which are produced vide Ex. 45 and 50. Ex. 45 was produced by the union whereas Ex. 50 was produced by the corporation. The ex. 50 is supported by reason for rejection of the application. Both the applications Ex. 45 and 50 are copies of each other. It was very much stated by the workman in his applications that the time of sale of the old house of his father, the vaccination certificate came to his hand wherein his name as Faizmohmed is recorded. The said certificate was issued on 10.03.1943 and his date of birth was also recorded in the said certificate as 06.11.1942. It was very much stated by the workman in his applications that the time of sale of the old house of his father, the vaccination certificate came to his hand wherein his name as Faizmohmed is recorded. The said certificate was issued on 10.03.1943 and his date of birth was also recorded in the said certificate as 06.11.1942. He had produced the said vaccination certificate, the certificate of SSC Board, the birth certificate of the workman of November, 1942 and the birth certificate issued by the birth and death registering authorities of the corporation. A note on the application was put up stating that the birth date of the workman was recorded as 06.11.1941, as per the SSC Certificate at the time when he joined the services of the corporation; that the workman states that his date of birth was 06.11.1942 and produces the vaccination certificate showing his name and date of birth as 06.11.1942; that in the certificate of birth issued by the health department the name of the workman was not shown as within the time limit his named was not entered but only shows that a child was born on 06.11.1942 and thereafter the workman had in view of S.V. & R.B. Ds. No. 8305 dated 23.01.1996, had obtained the birth certificate wherein his name was entered. The said certificate was issued as per Ex. 51. The authority making the above note sought the permission to correct the date of birth of the workman. The decision taken by the authority of the corporation is written on the overleaf of the said note which reads that (1) on the basis of the evidence produced by the workman, his dated of birth cannot be corrected. Regarding the birth certificate of November, 1942, it was stated that there was no name of the child in the birth certificate and hence that certificate is not acceptable. Regarding the vaccination certificate it was stated that he Vaccination Certificate is not admissible for proof of birth date. It was also stated in (2) of the reasons that the school leaving certificate is reliable evidence and the birth date recorded in the service book was recorded on the basis of the school leaving certificate which is proper. Regarding the vaccination certificate it was stated that he Vaccination Certificate is not admissible for proof of birth date. It was also stated in (2) of the reasons that the school leaving certificate is reliable evidence and the birth date recorded in the service book was recorded on the basis of the school leaving certificate which is proper. Thus, the reasons cited for rejection of the application was not that because the workman did not apply within six months from 25.07.1981, his application could not be entertained, but that the evidence produced by him were not acceptable as proof of birth date. 10. To support his contention that the authorities of the corporation had illegally or improperly rejected the application Ex. 45 and 50 of the workman, the learned advocate for the union has produced a decision in Smt. Vanajakshamma and others v. P.Gopala Krishna, reported in AIR 1970 Mysore 805 (or may be 305 as the page number is not readable in the xerox copy of the decision). It was a case under Section 488 of Cr.P.C. (1898) for maintenance proceeding. The question regarding the birth of a child had arisen. The extract of birth register maintained by the municipal authorities was produced. Acting under Sec.74 and 77 of the Evidence Act (1872), the Hon. High Court stated that the Register of Birth maintained by the municipality is a public document and that the certified copy of the extract is admissible to prove the contents of such public document. 11. In view of the aforesaid decision, the birth certificate issued by the municipal corporation and produced by the workman should have been accepted as reliable evidence especially when the contents of the said document tallied with the vaccination certificate. The vaccination certificate was also issued by the concerned authority, the public vaccinator of Ahmedabad who may be an officer of erstwhile Ahmedabad Municipality or the Municipal Corporation as the case may be. Therefore, the vaccination certificate which was issued on 10.03.1943 was also required to be accepted for the proof of birth date of the workman, in the humble opinion of this Tribunal. 12. We shall now go to consider the birth certificate issued by the corporation in November, 1942 vide Ex. 39 and the vaccination certificate issued by the Public Vaccinator on 10.03.1943 which is produced vide Ex. 44. Before adverting to examine Ex. 12. We shall now go to consider the birth certificate issued by the corporation in November, 1942 vide Ex. 39 and the vaccination certificate issued by the Public Vaccinator on 10.03.1943 which is produced vide Ex. 44. Before adverting to examine Ex. 39 and 44, it is necessary to refer to an affidavit of the priest (the Maulvi) which is filed vide Ex. 22 showing that the marriage ceremony of the parents of the workman was performed on 4th May, 1941. The workman was the first child who born on 06.11.1942 and his birth was got registered on 07.11.1942 as can be seen from Ex. 39 which was issued by the authorities of the corporation itself in November, 1942. Ex. 39 shows that the mother's name of the workman was Faizbibi and father's name was Noormohmed Mohmedhusein. In the column what was born whether a girl or boy, and in the sub-column against the word boy 1(one) is written. The date of birth is shown as 06.11.1942. This document shows that out of the wedlock of Faizbibi and the Noormohmed which started on 04.05.1941, the first child was born on 06.11.1942 and the said birth was got recorded in November, 1942. In the column of Schedule D. No. the figure 1000 is written. This was the document which came into the hands of the workman at the time of sale of his father's house. The performance of the marriage ceremony of the parents in May, 1941 and their eldest child was the workman is further supported by the affidavits of Faizbibi Noormohmed (mother) Ex. 78 and Noormahmed Mohmedhusein Qureshi (father) Ex. 79. This Tribunal thinks that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the parents of the workman got married in May, 1941 and their first child was the workman himself who was born on 06.11.1942 and whose birth certificate was produced at Ex. 39. Thus, Ex. 39 which is an older document and that was found in 1996 by the workman, this Tribunal thinks that the contents of the said documents cannot be disregarded. 13. Now, let us examine the vaccination certificate which is produced at Ex. 44 and which tallies with the birth certificate Ex. 39. What tallies in Ex. 39 and 44 is Schedule D. No. 1000 which is written in both, the birth certificate Ex. 39 and vaccination certificate Ex. 44. 13. Now, let us examine the vaccination certificate which is produced at Ex. 44 and which tallies with the birth certificate Ex. 39. What tallies in Ex. 39 and 44 is Schedule D. No. 1000 which is written in both, the birth certificate Ex. 39 and vaccination certificate Ex. 44. The date of birth of the child vaccinated was shown as 06.11.1942 and the name of the child vaccinated is shown as Faizmohmed. The age of the child vaccinated is shown as 5 months. The vaccination was done on 10.03.1943. This document was also found in 1996 at the time of sale of the house of father of the workman. Going through the said document Ex. 44, this Tribunal thinks that it is also an older and valid document to which reliance could have been placed by the authorities of the corporation while considering the application Ex. 45 and 50 of the workman for correction of his birth date. 14. A question, however, was raised by the learned advocate for the corporation drawing this Tribunal's attention to the date shown on the certificate Ex. 39, that this Ex. 39 was very much in possession of the workman at the time when he entered the services of the corporation on 04.09.1972. Ex. 39 appears to be a copy of the original certificate. The same was given on 25.05.1971 and since the workman had joined the services on 04.09.1972, he could have produced Ex. 39 instead of School Leaving Certificate or the SSC certificate. At the time of hearing the injunction application also such question was raised on behalf of the corporation. It is true that the date of issuance of Ex. 39 is 25.05.1971. Here also, we shall have to believe the story of the workman that he came to know for the first time in 1996 regarding his correct birth date at the time of sale of the old house of his father. The workman possibly would not be residing with his father especially in the old house that was to be sold. When the said document came to his hand in 1996, he had applied for correction of his date of birth. The workman possibly would not be residing with his father especially in the old house that was to be sold. When the said document came to his hand in 1996, he had applied for correction of his date of birth. The submission of the learned advocate for the union had appealed to this Tribunal in which, he submitted that, after all, what was to gain in suppressing the fact of his correct date of birth, if at all, said evidence was in his possession, at the time when he entered the service. From the date of birth as 06.11.1941 and the date of joining the service that is 04.09.1972, it cannot be said that the workman was underage or overage, and only to get employment he had stated his birth date as 06.11.1941 while suppressing the correct date of birth which was 06.11.1942. The workman, certainly had not the advantage in suppressing his correct date of birth, if at all, it was within his knowledge at the time when he joined the services of the corporation. It did not come to his notice till he applied vide Ex. 45=50 o 06.05.1996, otherwise, he could have applied in pursuance to Ex. 58 the circular No. 69 dated 23.10.1981, but till 23.10.81, and thereafter till he applied vide Ex. 45=50, the workman was carrying an impression that the birth date recorded in the service book was correct and therefore, he had no occasion to apply for correction of his date of birth. When the story of discovery of the correct date of birth is stated in Ex. 45=50, the statement of claim and also on oath in the oral evidence, and when the same is not successfully challenged by the corporation, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to believe that the correct date of birth of the workman was 06.11.1942 and not 06.11.1941 as recorded in the service book etc. 15. While referring to the service book, another question was raised by the learned advocate for the corporation that in the service book in the column of father's name the name of father of the workman is written as Noormohmed Hisamuddin, whereas in Ex. 39 the same is stated as Noormohmed Mohmedhusein. Thus, there being difference in the name of grandfather or workman in the service record and in Ex. 39, the same cannot be relied upon. 39 the same is stated as Noormohmed Mohmedhusein. Thus, there being difference in the name of grandfather or workman in the service record and in Ex. 39, the same cannot be relied upon. To meet with this contention, the union has produced an affidavit of father of the workman vide Ex. 21 stating that at the time of his birth of the father of the workman and thereafter his mother viz. Chandbibi had remarried to Mohmedhusein and thus, Noormohmed Mohmedhusein and Noormohmed Hisamuddin are one and the same person. The father of the workman stated in his affidavit that Hisamuddin was his real father whereas Mohmedhusein was his stepfather. Here also, there is no challenge by the corporation to the said affidavit Ex. 21. 16. The union has also stated the names of all the brothers and sisters of the workman in the statement of claim. The present workman being the eldest his birth date was stated to be 06.11.1942, thereafter his brother was born viz. Illmuddin whose birth date was 07.01.1946. Thereafter, a sister was born viz. Sartajbegam who was born on 03.12.1950. Thereafter, another sister viz. Shahjadibegam was born whose date of birth was 23.03.1953. Thereafter, another sister viz. Mumtazbibi whose birth date was 15.06.1955. Thereafter another sister Imtiazbegam was born. Thereafter he had a brother viz. Iqbalmohmed who was born on 01.01.1957 and lastly a brother viz. Mohmed Illiyas was born on 25.05.1966. The union has produced the school leaving certificates of some of the brothers and sisters which the workman could found vide list Ex. 10. The corporation has however stated in its written defence statement that the details of brothers and sisters were not necessary for the purpose of this Reference case. 17. The dispute was about the date of birth, whether it was 06.11.1941 or 06.11.1942. From the above discussion, this Tribunal is satisfied that the date of birth of the workman was 06.11.1942 and was not 06.11.1941 as recorded in the service record etc. The workman came to know about his correct date of birth in 1996 and soon he had applied for correction of his date of birth on 06.05.1996, but according to this Tribunal, the authorities concerned had wrongly rejected the said application Ex. 45=50. The workman was retired one year earlier than he ought to have been retired on the basis of his correct date of birth. 45=50. The workman was retired one year earlier than he ought to have been retired on the basis of his correct date of birth. " Any material which could controvert said findings is not available on record of the petition and learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show any material from the record to demonstrate that Labour Court's findings are perverse or incorrect. 7. From the said discussion it comes out that learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed all relevant factual aspects as well as contentions and objections raised by the Corporation, including the objection on ground of delay. Learned Tribunal has also considered and dealt with the decision on which the parties placed reliance. 8. Mr. Raval learned advocate for the claimant is justified in contending that the decision recorded by learned Tribunal is based on satisfactory and sufficient reason, which, are based on cogent evidence. 9. It is also appropriate to note that the learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the petitioner's contention based on school leaving certificate. 10. In this context, Mr. Raval learned advocate for respondent claimant relied on the observation made by Apex Court in case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others, reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-7 has held that: "7. The supervisory Jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." In light of the said observation by Hon'ble Apex Court, Mr. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." In light of the said observation by Hon'ble Apex Court, Mr. Raval learned advocate for the claimant submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error and the objection by petitioner only on the ground of delay on the part of claimant not approaching the Corporation for alteration in the date of birth, may not be entertained. 11. For the foregoing reason, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed error in recording final conclusion with regard to contention raised by the Corporation. It is true that the claimant woke up after delay and raised the dispute/demand after delay and that also after opportunity for seeking alteration was granted by the Corporation. However, it appears that it would not be in the interest of justice and fitness of things to deny the benefits granted by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that the claimant woke up belatedly. At the same time, the benefit should not be extended to the claimant without appropriating the consequences of delay to the claimant. 12. The above discussed aspect has brought out that the dispute is only about 12 months in as much as according to the claimant the date of birth should be considered as 06.11.1942 whereas Corporation has considered the birth date as 06.11.1941. When this aspect is taken into account, then it becomes clear that there is no justification to interfere with the final decision by learned Tribunal, except to modify with regard to benefits granted by learned Tribunal. 13. On overall consideration, of the matter this Court is of the view that equity would be balanced if the Corporation is directed to pay salary, allowances and other benefits for the period of 6 months instead of 12 months as per the direction by the learned Tribunal. The claimant, for the delay on his part, should suffer loss of salary of 6 months. 14. Therefore, following order is passed: "(a) Decision by learned Tribunal is not interfered with so far as the direction to the corporation that the claimant's retirement should be considered as November, 2000 instead of November, 1999. The claimant, for the delay on his part, should suffer loss of salary of 6 months. 14. Therefore, following order is passed: "(a) Decision by learned Tribunal is not interfered with so far as the direction to the corporation that the claimant's retirement should be considered as November, 2000 instead of November, 1999. (b) However, the direction to pay salary, allowances and other benefits for the period from November, 1999 to November 2000 is modified and the Corporation is directed to pay salary, allowances and other benefits for period of 6 months whereas the claimant will not be entitled for salary, allowances and other benefits for balance 6 months. (c) The date of retirement of the claimant will be considered as 30.11.2000 as per direction by the Tribunal. (d) The Corporation will endeavour to pay the amount of Salary, allowances and other benefits to the claimant as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 31.03.2017." 15. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The award is partly set aside and partly modified. Orders accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.