JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of several adjournment granted. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 14.09.2002 pronounced on 13.01.2003 passed in Ref. No. 06 of 1992 by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City whereby reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman. 3. From the pleadings and arguments, it appears that the respondent-workman has joined service of the petitioner on 03.05.1978 on the post of Khalasi/Mazdoor on the strength of appointment letter dated 01.05.1978. At the time of entering into the service, his date of birth has been recorded as 05.03.1943. There was no variation in the official records warranting initiation of any proceeding or consideration for change in date of birth. 4. It appears that suddenly on the basis of certain material available in the vigilance enquiry, date of birth has been changed as 50 years, but when the change has been made, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to ascertain the said date or order. Admittedly, this change has been made without initiation of any proceeding. This change of date of birth has been challenged by raising Industrial Dispute, which has been referred as Ref. No. 06 of 1992. 5. Terms of Reference is as follows: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Bishtu Charan Ojha, Staff No. 398439, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City from 29-11-85 is justified? If not what kind of relief he is entitled to?” 6. Labour Court, after considering the evidence and written statement of the parties, has answered the reference in favour of the workman. Concluding portion of the Award dated 13.01.2003 reads as under: “6. From the discussions made above I find that scoring out the date of birth 5.3.1943 recorded by the workman in the Personal Data Form and in place thereof noting 50 years of age by the management without giving any opportunity to the workman is apparently illegal. In fact the date of birth recorded by the workman in the Personal Data Form is 5.3.1943. Thus, the termination of services of Bishtu Charan Ojha Staff No. 398439, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City from 29.11.1985 is unjustified. In fact the date of birth recorded by the workman in the Personal Data Form is 5.3.1943. Thus, the termination of services of Bishtu Charan Ojha Staff No. 398439, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City from 29.11.1985 is unjustified. The workman Bishtu Charan Ojha is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential benefits from 25.12.87, the date on which the dispute was raised on behalf of the workman by the General Secretary, Bokaro Karmchari Panchayat, Bokaro Steel City through letter No. BKP/252/87 dt. 25.12.87 addressed to the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel, Bokaro Steel City. The award must be implemented within three months from the date of its pronouncement. This is my AWARD.” 7. It is trite that procedural protection has to be given to the litigant. Procedural safeguard is necessary for preserving the Rule of law. Any conclusion or order passed without following the authorized procedure, amounts to without jurisdiction. Jurisdiction comes after issuance of notice and run through authorize procedure and has to culminate into a final order. 8. In fact, procedural safeguard is equally important, rather necessary for Constitutionalism. As per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, abridgment of process is nothing but negation of Rule of law. 9. Reference can be made to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Hukam Chand reported in (2009) 11 SCC 222 wherein Court has clearly held that the notice as well as authorize procedure is necessary for passing any order, which culminate in civil consequences. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and submission has been advanced that in case of admission no procedure is required to be followed. Admission is important piece of evidence. Admission has to be under the proceeding initiated against an employee. Any material cannot justify the abridgment of process. Material or evidence has to be considered by Adjudicatory Authority in proceeding duly initiated and proceeded. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, date of birth has been corrected without giving any notice and without following any procedure. This is Ipso facto arbitrary and in complete negation of Rule of law. To act in such a manner affecting the right of the employee is not acceptable. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, date of birth has been corrected without giving any notice and without following any procedure. This is Ipso facto arbitrary and in complete negation of Rule of law. To act in such a manner affecting the right of the employee is not acceptable. State should behalf like a model employer and has to protect the constitutionalism and Rule of law. No excuse is available to the State for not following due process of law. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason warranting any interference with the impugned Award dated 14.09.2002 pronounced on 13.01.2003 passed in Ref. No. 06 of 1992 by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. 13. Resultantly, the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.