JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference No. 05 of 2010, whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman and in favour of the respondent-management. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner in service as he was made to prematurely retire from service on 31.12.2011 i.e., 10 years prior to his actual age of superannuation. 2. The factual background of the case as emerges from the writ petition is that the petitioner-workman was appointed on causal basis on 25.04.1985. At the time of appointment, the officials of the management company obtained the signatures of the petitioner in various forms, wherein he disclosed his date of birth as 01.01.1962 and in support of the same, he submitted his School Leaving Certificate (SLC) dated 20.01.1983 of Class-VIII issued by the Principal, Ashok Uchcha Vidyalaya, Paraiya, Gaya which was also verified by the officials and was retained in their possession. On 27.12.1993, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Senior Personnel Manager, Steel Foundry, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro to provide date of birth certificate and in reply thereto, the concerned authority issued a certificate on 28.12.1993 in which the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.01.1962. The petitioner appeared in the Secondary School Examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in the year 1995 from High School Sembhua, Mehandia, Jehanabad and his date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1962 in the Admit Card as well as in the Provisional Certificate issued by the said Board. The said date of birth was also mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate as well as in the Character Certificate issued by the said high school. The Deputy Manager (P/W) & Foundry, Bokaro Steel City vide letter dated 20.11.1997 also clarified that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1962. The said date of birth was also mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate as well as in the Character Certificate issued by the said high school. The Deputy Manager (P/W) & Foundry, Bokaro Steel City vide letter dated 20.11.1997 also clarified that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1962. As soon as the petitioner came to know that his date of birth has wrongly been entered in the computer as 01.01.1952, he filed representations on 01.09.1998 and 24.10.2004 and thereafter, the Secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Anusuchit Jati Parishad also wrote letter on 14.12.2006 to the Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro regarding correction of date of birth of the petitioner, but no positive action was taken in this regard. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 16.01.2007 issued by the Personnel Officer, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, whereby the request of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth was declined. Thereafter, a dispute regarding the matter was raised by the petitioner represented through General Secretary, Jharkhand Mazdoor Samaj, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and the Governor of Jharkhand referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bokaro by issuing a notification in this regard on 17.12.2009. On receipt of the said reference, it was registered as Reference No. 05 of 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed vide letters dated 01.07.2011 and 03.10.2011 issued by the Junior Manager (Personnel Department), Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro that he was going to retire on 31.12.2011. Subsequently, the learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro passed the impugned award dated 09.08.2016 in Reference No.05 of 2010 in favour of the respondent-management holding inter alia that the petitioner-workman furnished his date of birth as 01.01.1952 in the official records and on the basis of which he got superannuated from the service on attaining the age of 60 years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that pre-mature superannuation of the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted his original School Leaving Certificate issued by the Principal, Ashok Uchcha Vidyalaya, Paraiya, Gaya dated 20.01.1983 before the respondent-management in which his date of birth has been clearly mentioned as 01.01.1962. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that pre-mature superannuation of the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted his original School Leaving Certificate issued by the Principal, Ashok Uchcha Vidyalaya, Paraiya, Gaya dated 20.01.1983 before the respondent-management in which his date of birth has been clearly mentioned as 01.01.1962. The learned court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner had adduced sufficient evidence in support of his claim that his actual date of birth is 01.01.1962 and the respondent-management has arbitrarily forced him to retire 10 years before his actual date of superannuation treating his date of birth as 01.01.1952. The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman, while referring to Annexure-R/2 annexed with the rejoinder affidavit, submits that subsequent to passing of the impugned award, the petitioner-workman made an application before the respondent-management under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In response thereof, the “Interview Particular Form” was supplied to him. On perusal of the said form, it would be evident that the date of birth of the petitioner-workman has been shown as 01.01.1962 and the same has also been written in words. The “Personal Data Form” (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) relied upon by the respondent-management has neither been filled up by the petitioner-workman nor the entries made therein appears to be reliable from any corner. Moreover, so far as the entries of the date of birth as 01.01.1952 made in the application form for allotment of quarter and Provident Fund Nomination Form are concerned, the same were never filled up by the petitioner and even if the said age has been mentioned therein, the same has been done unilaterally by the officials of the respondents without any notice to the petitioner-workman. So far as the entries made in the application forms for allotment of quarter is concerned, the said entries were also made inadvertently as the said forms signed by the petitioner-workman were meant for allocation of quarter only. The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman also refers to letter dated 20/22.07.1985 (Ext. A/1) and submits that the said letter is the medical examination report of the petitioner in which his age has been shown as 24 years. The application for renewal of medical book also mentions the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1962 which has also been countersigned by an official of the respondent-management. A/1) and submits that the said letter is the medical examination report of the petitioner in which his age has been shown as 24 years. The application for renewal of medical book also mentions the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1962 which has also been countersigned by an official of the respondent-management. As such, the impugned award accepting the contention of the respondent-management that the date of birth of the petitioner-workman has to be treated as 01.01.1952 is completely erroneous and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-management submits that the petitioner-workman joined the company on causal basis in the year 1985 and he disclosed his date of birth as 01.01.1952 which was also verified from his Class-VIII School Leaving Certificate. At the time of joining of the service, the petitioner had submitted two sets of “Personal Data Form” out of which, one was kept in the personal record of the petitioner-workman and another set was sent to the police for verification. As per the case of the respondent-management, an interpolation was found in the “Personal Data Form” of the petitioner kept in Steel Foundry where his personal details were kept, whereas the other original file of the petitioner-workman which was kept in the statistical department, there was no such interpolation in which the date of birth of the petitioner-workman was mentioned as 01.01.1952. In all the documents of the petitioner including the declaration form, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 01.01.1952. The Secondary School Certificate issued in the year 1995 cannot be taken into consideration as the same was submitted by the petitioner-workman much after his entering in the service. In course of industrial adjudication, the respondent-management examined two witnesses who fully supported the case of the management. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-management that the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 01.01.1952 in the Attestation Form and he has also admitted in his cross-examination that he got the said “Attestation Form” (Ext. M-1) filled up by someone else. The copy of “Personal Data Form” (Ext. M-2) and the attested copy of the “Personal Data Form” (Ext. M-2/1) would clearly suggest that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1952 which was verified from Class-VIII School Leaving Certificate. M-1) filled up by someone else. The copy of “Personal Data Form” (Ext. M-2) and the attested copy of the “Personal Data Form” (Ext. M-2/1) would clearly suggest that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1952 which was verified from Class-VIII School Leaving Certificate. It is also submitted that though in Ext. M-3, the date of birth of the petitioner has been written as 01.01.1962, the same has been encircled and the date of birth – “01.01.1952” has been written just above it which also bears the signature of the petitioner-workman. Though the petitioner has disputed his signature on Ext. M-3, however, in cross examination, he has admitted that he also used to put his signature in Hindi. The petitioner-workman has himself admitted his signatures on Ext. M-5, Ext. M-8 and Ext. M-9, wherein his date of birth has clearly been mentioned as 01.01.1952. Ext. M-5 is the “Declaration and Nomination Form for PF” whereas Ext. M-8 and M-9 are the application forms for allotment of E-type quarter, wherein his date of birth is clearly visible as 01.01.1952. In the “Declaration and Nomination Form for PF” (Ext. M-12) which was signed by the petitioner on 18.12.1987, his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.1952. The petitioner is blowing hot and cold at the same breath as in some documents, his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.1962 and in some documents as 01.01.1952 bearing his signature. The petitioner has also admitted in his cross-examination that he got the knowledge regarding anomaly in his date of birth in the year 1998, but he has not been able to give any satisfactory reason as to why he did not take prompt steps for getting the service excerpts corrected soon thereafter. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-management that an employee cannot be allowed to raise dispute regarding his date of birth at the fag end of his service. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner-workman was appointed on casual basis on 25.04.1985 and subsequently, his services were regularized on the post of Khalasi on 25.08.1987. The learned Labour Court found that the petitioner raised the dispute regarding the correction of his date of birth belatedly at the fag end of his service. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner-workman was appointed on casual basis on 25.04.1985 and subsequently, his services were regularized on the post of Khalasi on 25.08.1987. The learned Labour Court found that the petitioner raised the dispute regarding the correction of his date of birth belatedly at the fag end of his service. It was also noticed by the learned Labour Court that though the petitioner has claimed that he kept making representations since 1998, no document has been produced in support of the said contention. In fact, the first representation was given by the petitioner-workman on 16.12.2006 which was replied by the respondent-management vide letter dated 16.01.2007 (Ext.M-10). Thus, it appears that the petitioner-workman raised the dispute regarding his date of birth in his official record after about 8 years of getting the knowledge of the alleged anomaly and few years before his superannuation. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of M.P. Vs. Premlal Shrivas & Ors.” reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under: “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights.” 8. It can thus be construed that the correction in the date of birth of an employee cannot be claimed as a matter of right at the fag end of service and only when there is irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and an application for correction of the same is filed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the said correction can be permitted. 9. In the present case, the respondent-management produced several documents before the learned Labour Court such as, Attestation Form, Personal Data Form and Marriage Declaration Form of the petitioner-workman in support of its contention that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1952. The date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 01.01.1952 in the “Attestation Form” (Ext. M-1 and M-1/1). Moreover, the copy of the “Personal Data Form” and the attested copy of the “Personal Data Form” have also been exhibited as Ext.M-2 and Ext.M-2/1 respectively, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 01.01.1952 which is stated to have been verified by his Class-VIII School Leaving Certificate. Though the date of birth of the petitioner-workman has been written as 01.01.1962 in his Personal Data Form (Ext. M-3), the said date of birth has been encircled and just above it, the date of birth – “01.01.1952” has been written with a certification that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1952. The date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1952 has also been mentioned in the Declaration and Nomination Form for PF as well as in the application forms for allotment of E-type quarter to him. Thus, the respondent-management appears to have produced several documents before the learned Labour Court in support of its contention that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1952. The petitioner-workman has in fact admitted in his cross-examination that the Attestation Form (Ext. M-1) has been filled up by someone else on his direction. He has also admitted the entries made in the application forms for allotment of quarter, however, he has made an excuse that the same has been entered due to inadvertence. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman has put much emphasis on the copy of the petitioner’s Class-VIII School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as 01.01.1962. He has also admitted the entries made in the application forms for allotment of quarter, however, he has made an excuse that the same has been entered due to inadvertence. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman has put much emphasis on the copy of the petitioner’s Class-VIII School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as 01.01.1962. However, the copy of the said School Leaving Certificate was not taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court on the ground that neither the original of the said certificate was produced before the said court nor the same was proved by examining any competent witness and, therefore, the said document cannot be said to be validly proved in terms with the provisions of the Evidence Act. I find no infirmity in the said finding of the learned Labour Court. The petitioner has, however, contended that the original of the said certificate is in possession of the respondent-management. Even if the said contention is accepted, the petitioner was required to call a competent person from the concerned school to verify the authenticity of the copy of the said School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner-workman before the learned Labour Court. 11. The certificates dated 28.12.1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and 20.11.1997 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) are the certificates issued by the respondent-management, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner-workman has been mentioned as 01.01.1962. The said certificates have been heavily relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman in support of the petitioner’s claim, however, it appears that in the said certificates, it has been mentioned that the same have been issued for educational purposes. So far as the matriculation certificate, character certificate, admit card etc. are concerned, the same have been obtained by the petitioner during his service period before which the petitioner had already submitted several documents disclosing his date of birth as 01.01.1952. Nevertheless, if the petitioner-workman had any objection to the entry of the said date of birth, he should have agitated the matter immediately after getting knowledge of the same. 12. On consideration of the entire dispute, it appears that in some documents maintained in the official record, the date of birth of the petitioner-workman has been mentioned as 01.01.1952 and in some documents as 01.01.1962. 12. On consideration of the entire dispute, it appears that in some documents maintained in the official record, the date of birth of the petitioner-workman has been mentioned as 01.01.1952 and in some documents as 01.01.1962. The petitioner-workman is putting reliance on those documents which are in his favour, whereas the respondent-management is relying on the documents in which the date of birth has been written as 01.01.1952. However, the fact remains that even after coming to know about the defects in the official record, the petitioner-workman kept mum for a considerable period and he started representing the authorities for correction of his date of birth few years before his date of superannuation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution especially in the matters of correction of date of birth is required to be circumspect and only in those cases where clear mistake of date of birth appears, the interference is warranted. However, no factual determination is required to be made by the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction for correction of the date of birth. 13. In the case of “Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. & Anr.” reported in (2014) 6 SCC 434 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “15. We find the judgment and award of the Labour Court well-reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the findings of the Labour Court in its award as it is well settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or re-appreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well-reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well-reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the award of the Labour Court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice.” 14. It would thus flow from the aforesaid judgment that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot sit in appeal over the judgment/award of the Labour Court/Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence. Only in those cases in which the serious error of law, perversity or issue of jurisdiction arises, the High Court is justified in interfering with the award of industrial adjudicator. There being clear finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner’s date of birth should be treated as 01.01.1952 as per the official records, on the basis of which he retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years, I see no reason to interfere with the same. 15. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.