JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the B.C.C.L. 2. The impugned order dated 1st August 2016 sought to be reviewed reads as under :- “Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned Award dated 10.12.2013 in Reference No. 40/2011, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has answered the following reference in favour of the Respondent Management. “Whether the action of the management of Gopalichak Colliery of M/s BCCL, in not correcting the date of birth of Sri Ramdhiraj Ram, Electric Mistry as 01.07.1956 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?” 3. Perusal of the impugned Award reflects that the claim of the petitioner was based upon a Matriculation Certificate issued on 12.09.1981 by the Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh showing that the petitioner had appeared from A.H.H.S. School Parsa, Ghazipur as a private candidate. Petitioner tried to make out a case before the learned Tribunal that he had entered the service only on 05.03.1981 when he had submitted his primary and 8th pass certificate in the Colliery office which showed his date of birth as 01.07.1956 and without his consent, the same has been entered as 10.03.1954 which is incorrect. Form-B Register (MW-1) adduced during course of the proceedings before the learned Industrial Tribunal however, shows that he was appointed as a Fitter Helper on 10.03.1979 and the date 05.03.1981 was found by the learned Tribunal as a date of work distribution as Fitter Helper and not the joining date. Petitioner had also put his signature in the Form-B Register. Learned Tribunal therefore did not find any illegality or unfairness on the part of the Respondent Management who have treated his date of birth as 10.03.1954. Tribunal has also taken into account that though petitioner claims to have passed Matriculation Exam in 1981 itself, but has raised the issue in belated manner which is not tenable. 4. Having considered the pleas of the rival parties, the inference drawn by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from perversity or based on factors extraneous to materials produced during course of the proceedings. He has taken into account the evidence adduced by either of the parties. In that sense, inference cannot also be said to be without any evidence. He has taken into account the evidence adduced by either of the parties. In that sense, inference cannot also be said to be without any evidence. Appreciation of evidence also does not suffer from any error in which Court should interfere in a writ jurisdiction. Petitioner has therefore failed to make out any case for interference in the matter. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.” 3. The challenge to the impugned award was made on the ground that the learned Tribunal had committed error of law in not considering the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the dispute was raised in the year 2007 was an error of record as petitioner had represented for correction of his date of birth in 1998 which the respondents were duty bound to correct. Grave injustice has been caused because of non-correction of his date of birth despite the proof of the Matriculation certificate in his favour. Enclosed to the writ petition were the Matriculation certificate at Annexure-1 dated 12th September 1981, the written statement cum rejoinder on behalf of the management, the rejoinder on behalf of the workman filed in reference case and the impugned award. The plea of the management that the workman was appointed on 10th March 1979 and not on 5th March 1981 and that his matriculation certificate was issued on 4th August 1981 after his appointment, was accepted by the Tribunal while also holding that the claim was delayed. Implementation Instruction 76 which is the basis for correction of date of birth under the respondent BCCL was also relied upon by the management to say that the certificate issued after the appointment of the concerned person is not a proof of actual date of birth. Petitioner had also put his signature in Form-B Register which was adduced during course of labour court proceedings in support of his date of appointment. Based on these averments and materials on record the Writ Court did not find any perversity in the impugned award calling for interference. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has brought on record several documents which was not part of the writ petition including a representation at page-27. He has submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal upheld by the Writ Court that the claim was belated is a clear error of record. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has brought on record several documents which was not part of the writ petition including a representation at page-27. He has submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal upheld by the Writ Court that the claim was belated is a clear error of record. This document is a representation dated 3rd January 1998 and was not placed on record and relied by the petitioner while prosecuting the writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that this document was also before the learned Tribunal and has not been properly considered while recording a finding that the claim was stale and belated. 5. Counsel for the respondent, in opposition, submits that even by this document the claim of the petitioner was belatedly made after 19 years of the entry in service and 17 years from the date he claims to have passed the matriculation exam. In any case there are no apparent error on record to warrant review of the impugned order. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the materials borne from the connected record and the present review petition. 7. Petitioner has sought review of the impugned order relying upon the documents which were never part of the writ petition where the impugned award was under challenge. The Writ Court after taking into note the rival submissions of the parties and the material facts borne from the record, did not find any perversity in the impugned award calling for interference. The grounds being raised now cannot make the impugned judgment vulnerable as new documents have been brought on record in this petition for seeking review. 8. Considered in totality no grounds are made out to review the order impugned. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.