JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atul Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL. 2. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the award dated 17.01.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhanbad whereby and where under the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act has been answered against the workman-concerned. 3. It is a case of the workman namely Maheshi Saw that he had been appointed by the authority of a private coal company in the year 1963 in Angarpathra Colliery and Form ''B'' register was filled up which disclosed his date of birth as 20.03.1946. In the Identity Card also the date of birth was recorded as 20.03.1946. 4. It is the case of the workman that he had obtained license of Electrician from the Electricity Board, Bihar at Patna in which his date of birth has been recorded as 20.03.1946. The concerned workman claims that his elder brother who is also employed in Angarpathra Colliery has his date of birth recorded as July, 1944 and in such situation therefore the workman being the younger brother could not have been born prior to his elder brother. 5. The management had filed its written statement in which it has been asserted that at the time of entry into service the concerned workman had declared his date of birth as September, 1938 and which has been recorded in the Form ''B'' register. 6. It is the further case that the workman was transferred to West Mudidih Colliery and in the IPC, his date of birth has been indicated as September, 1938. In the service excerpt which was prepared in the year 1987 the date of birth of the concerned workman was mentioned as 01.07.1937 due to inadvertence which was corrected by the workman as 01.07.1938 and in token of his acceptance had put his signature on the same. The management had issued a letter dated 05.05.1998 informing the workman that he was to superannuate w.e.f. 15.09.1998 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in Form ''B'' register as September, 1938. The management had issued a letter dated 05.05.1998 informing the workman that he was to superannuate w.e.f. 15.09.1998 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in Form ''B'' register as September, 1938. The management further claims that the concerned workman had raised the dispute after his superannuation and he had never shown his inclination to challenge his recorded date of birth during the course of his employment. 7. The dispute which was raised by the concerned workman was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the terms of reference is as follows: "Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL, West Mudidih Project, in retiring Sri Maheshi Shaw w.e.f. 15.09.1998 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " 8. In the said proceeding documentary as well as oral evidences were adduced on behalf of both the parties and ultimately vide award dated 17.01.2010 it was concluded by the learned Tribunal that the action of the management of M/s B.C.C.L., West Mudidih Project in retiring Maheshi Saw w.e.f. 15.09.1998 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. 9. Being aggrieved with the award dated 17.01.2010 the petitioner/concerned workman has challenged the same in the present writ application. 10. It has been submitted by Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that at the time of his joining at Angarpathra Colliery in 1963 the Form ''B'' register which was filled up disclosed the date of birth as 20.03.1946. It has been submitted that in spite of repeated directions the management did not produce the original Form ''B'' register which would have substantiated the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Form ''B'' register which the management has much stressed upon is basically a forged and fabricated document. Learned counsel further submits that the date of birth as 20.03.1946 recorded in the initial Form ''B'' register was corroborated by the report of the Medical Board wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was assessed to be 20.03.1946. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate vital facets of the case while answering the reference in the negative. 11. Mr. Atul Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner primarily on two counts. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate vital facets of the case while answering the reference in the negative. 11. Mr. Atul Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner primarily on two counts. The first being that the Form ''B'' register has a statutory force under the Mines Act and therefore in absence of there being any cogent evidence to the contrary the date of birth recorded in the Form ''B'' register is to be treated as a gospel truth and the learned Tribunal was therefore justified in answering the reference in favour of the management. Learned counsel has further submitted that the dispute regarding the date of birth of the petitioner was raised at the fag end of his service tenure and he cannot be permitted to agitate his grievance at such a belated stage which has rightly been appreciated by the learned Tribunal. 12. It is to be noted herein that the dispute which was raised by the workman concerned was referred for adjudication before the learned Tribunal vide notification dated 27.09.2000 and the petitioner had already superannuated w.e.f. 15.09.1998. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had made a concerted effort much prior to his superannuation regarding the date of birth recorded in the Form ''B'' register as well as in the service excerpt and he had continued to accept the said date of birth till at the end of his tenure when the dispute was raised and which ultimately led to an adjudication. 13. In the context of the above, reference may be made to the case of "State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Premlal Shrivas" reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 . The same reads 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 (see Union of India vs. Harnam Singh)." 14. Therefore the courts and the Tribunals have to be circumspect and cautious regarding such belated claims disputing the date of birth which has been recorded in the relevant service records of the company. 15. The next contention with which this Court is seized with is with respect to the document which has been produced by the petitioner claiming his date of birth as 20.03.1946 which is to be seen in the context of the date of birth recorded in the Form ''B'' register. It is to be noted herein that one of the documents which forms the basis or foundation of the claim of the petitioner is the Identity Card issued by the management. The said Identity Card was tinkered with as per the own admission of the concerned workman and after deleting the original date of birth recorded in the Identity Card the same was substituted by a different ink showing his date of birth as 20.03.1946. 16. The said Identity Card was tinkered with as per the own admission of the concerned workman and after deleting the original date of birth recorded in the Identity Card the same was substituted by a different ink showing his date of birth as 20.03.1946. 16. So far as the claim of the petitioner regarding the purported Medical Board which was constituted and which had assessed his age as that recorded in the original Form ''B'' register at the time of entry into service the same is not at all a tenable or valid ground as in the application which was preferred before the learned Tribunal calling for some original documents the report of the Medical Board is conspicuously absent and therefore it appears that the concerned workman was not very serious with respect to his claim regarding the report of the purported Medical Board. 17. It is also to be noted herein that in the service excerpt prepared in 1987 some errors had crept up regarding the date of birth of the petitioner which was subsequently corrected as 01.07.1938 and the petitioner had also signed on the same as a token of acceptance. If the petitioner was indeed aggrieved by a wrong entry made in the relevant document with respect to his date of birth he could have raised a dispute at the very threshold but instead he had accepted the date of birth and at the fag end of his service tenure he has raised the dispute. 18. The validity, legality or otherwise of the date of birth recorded in a Form ''B'' register in absence of any other documents is beyond redemption. section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 denotes that for every mine there shall be kept in the prescribed form and place a register of all persons employed in the mine showing in respect of each such person various particulars including the age of the concerned employee. The Mines Rules, 1955 also refers to the Form ''B'' register in terms of the provisions as laid down in Rules 48(3), 51, 77 and 77- A(2). The Form ''B'' register therefore has a statutory force and the particulars which have been recorded cannot be deviated from in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence which would be contrary to what has been recorded in the Form ''B'' register more particularly with respect to the date of birth. The Form ''B'' register therefore has a statutory force and the particulars which have been recorded cannot be deviated from in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence which would be contrary to what has been recorded in the Form ''B'' register more particularly with respect to the date of birth. Therefore the date of birth of the petitioner which has been recorded as 01.07.1938 is the conclusive proof of the date of birth of the petitioner and therefore the action of the management in retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 15.09.1998 was on justifiable grounds. 19. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the award dated 17.01.2010 and accordingly this writ application stands dismissed.