JUDGMENT : In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally. PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER - MANAGEMENT 2. Petitioner-Management has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Award dated 30.12.2009, passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal – I, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding that action of the management in having recorded date of birth of the concerned workman as 27.02.1950 is not justified and has also been pleased to hold that age/date of birth of the concerned workman-respondent is 11.07.1958. CASE OF THE PETITIONER – MANAGEMENT 3. Case of the petitioner–Management is that Raghu Bhuia, who was appointed on 10.07.1980 in the employment of Sudamdih Shaft Mine as Piece Rated Miner, died in harness on 25.09.1992 at Central Hospital, Dhanbad. After his death, his widow Smt. Gulabia Devi applied for her appointment under Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A.-V and was appointed as a Security Guard on 24.04.1993 at Sudamdih Shaft Mines of E.J. Area, BCCL. Since said Smt. Gulabia Devi was an illiterate, her age was to be determined in terms with the Circular No. CIL/NCWA-III/I./I. No. 76/88/145, dated 25.04.1988 and accordingly, she was referred to the Medical Examination Board of Sudamdih Project and on 27.02.1993, her age was found to be 43 years implying her date of birth to be 27.02.1950, which is also mentioned in the Statutory Form-B Register as also in Service Excerpts and other records of the Company, duly acknowledged by her by putting thumb impression without any protest. On 24.12.2002, i.e. almost after ten years of her joining, she made a complaint before the Employer regarding correction in date of birth, but the same was not considered. Being aggrieved, the sponsoring Union namely Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh raised an industrial dispute, which also ended in failure and the report of failure of conciliation was submitted before the appropriate Government. Being aggrieved, the sponsoring Union namely Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh raised an industrial dispute, which also ended in failure and the report of failure of conciliation was submitted before the appropriate Government. After failure of conciliation, the appropriate Government, by reasons of order dated 10.11.2003, referred the dispute before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with the following terms of reference: “Whether the action of the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s. BCCL, in having recorded the date of birth of the workman Smt. Gulabia Devi, Security Guard as 277.02.50, has been justified as per norms and Rules while date of her appointment has been recorded as 24.04.1993? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 4. Upon receipt of the order of reference, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad registered the same as Ref. No. 111/2003 and issued notices to the parties to submit their written statement/rejoinder etc. 5. The respondent appeared and filed its written statement before the Industrial Tribunal and the Management filed reply thereof followed by the reply/rejoinder filed by the respective parties. Thereafter, evidences were led by both the sides and the Tribunal, vide Award dated 30.12.2009, held that action of management in recording date of birth of the workman as 27.02.1950 was not justified and further held that the date of birth of the workman is 11.07.1958. 6. Assailing the impugned Award, the petitioner-Management has knocked door of this Court ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-MANAGEMENT 7. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-management argues that Gulabia Devi, wife of the deceased-workman was an illiterate and as such her age was to be determined in terms of the Circular No. CIL/NCWA-III/I.I. No. 76/88/145, dated 25.04.1988, as formulated by the Joint Bipartite Committee on Coal Industry. Under the said Circular, a procedure has been laid down for determination/verification of age of the employee and for resolution of disputed cases relating to date of birth. Annexure-I appended to the implementation Instruction No. 76 lays down the procedure for determination/verification of age of employee. Clause (A) of the same lays down the procedure for determination of age at the time of appointment. Annexure-I appended to the implementation Instruction No. 76 lays down the procedure for determination/verification of age of employee. Clause (A) of the same lays down the procedure for determination of age at the time of appointment. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (A) deals with determination of age of illiterates and reads as under: “In the case of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointees. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.” 8. Learned counsel further argues that after following due procedures, age of the concerned workman was assessed and recorded in Form-B register as also in service excerpts. Ten years after the said assessment, the concerned workman has raised the dispute which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that date of birth of the workman was consistently recorded as 27.02.1950 in all statutory records including the NEIS and as such, at the fag end of her service, she cannot be allowed to raise the dispute regarding her date of birth. Learned counsel further submits that ignoring entire aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has wrongly and illegally held that date of birth of the workman as 27.02.1950 is not justified and as such, the same is fit to be interfered. Learned counsel further submits there is no cutting, overwriting, interpolation over the date of birth and once the same has been accepted by the workman after her medical examination, she cannot challenge the same after lapse of so many years. Learned counsel submits that even as per Instruction No. 76 and also in view of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. BCCL & Ors. reported in 2007(3) JLJR 726 , case of the workman fails and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Karu Nonia Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited reported in (2002) 1 JCR 418 : (2002) 1 JLJR 798 , wherein Hon’ble Court has held that date of birth once recorded in statutory Form-B Register, cannot be changed, if not changed within 10 years from the date of entry in the service. Bharat Coking Coal Limited reported in (2002) 1 JCR 418 : (2002) 1 JLJR 798 , wherein Hon’ble Court has held that date of birth once recorded in statutory Form-B Register, cannot be changed, if not changed within 10 years from the date of entry in the service. In the instant case petitioner never submitted her application/objection within 10 years of his service for correction/reassessment of her age and as such this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that even if Service Code is taken into consideration, any objection has to be made within a period of ten years whereas, in the instant case, petitioner has raised objection after more than 10 years, which cannot be accepted for correction in the date of birth. Learned counsel further submits that this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions, has held that the date of birth cannot be corrected at the fag end of service. Learned counsel submits that in view of settled principles of law, no interference is required in this writ petition and the writ petition merits dismissal. 9. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (i) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh [ (2020) 3 SCC 411 ]; (ii) Ajit Singh Vs. M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur, [W.P.(L). No. 1251 of 2010, dt. 05.10.2020, passed by this Court]. (iii) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and Another [1995 Supp. 2 SCC 598] (iv) Seema Ghosh Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. [ (2006) 7 SCC 722 ] (v) G.M. BCCL Vs. Shib Kumar Dusad [ (2000) 8 SCC 696 ] (vi) 2004(1) JCR 51 (Jhr.) (vii) Manik Chand Ghosh Vs. Bhrat Coking coal Ltd. & Others [ 2004(1) JCR 51 (Jhr.) (viii) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan [ (1994) 6 SCC 302 (ix) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh [(2020) 2 Supreme Today 189. (x) Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & others, (2000) 2 SCC 455 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT – WORKMAN 10. Mr. T.V. Venugopalan [ (1994) 6 SCC 302 (ix) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh [(2020) 2 Supreme Today 189. (x) Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & others, (2000) 2 SCC 455 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT – WORKMAN 10. Mr. Rishav Deo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman argues that the Award dated 30.12.2009, passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 111/2003 is legal, proper, valid and is based on evidences on record and no interference is warranted by this Court. The writ petition is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award. Learned counsel further argues that concerned workman is an illiterate lady and after sudden death of her husband, she was not aware with the entry made by the management in the service excerpts. Date of birth of the workman was already reflected in the Service Excerpts of her deceased husband as 29 years on 11.06.1987 and accordingly, while submitting her application for appointment under para 9.3.2 of NCWA-V, she had mentioned her date of birth as 11.07.1958. The date of birth of her deceased husband was 01.01.1955 and as such, date of birth of the concerned workman (widow of the deceased) could not have been 1950. The Tribunal has rightly answered reference in favour of the workman and the same requires no interference. CONCLUSION 11. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that learned Tribunal has passed the Award mechanically without considering the relevant statutory provisions, standing orders of Coal India and hence, it is capricious and cryptic and fit to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons: (I) The learned Tribunal has totally misconstrued the relevant provisions of limitation and has wrongly decided to waive all the formalities, which is impermissible in the eyes of law, as statutory provisions are not discretion of any Court, rather, they are binding in nature. (II) In view of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. BCCL & Ors. reported in 2007(3) JLJR 726 , case of the workman fails and writ petition is fit to be allowed. (III) In the case of Karu Nonia Vs. (II) In view of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. BCCL & Ors. reported in 2007(3) JLJR 726 , case of the workman fails and writ petition is fit to be allowed. (III) In the case of Karu Nonia Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited reported in (2002) 1 JCR 418 : (2002) 1 JLJR 798 , the Court has held that date of birth once recorded in statutory Form-B Register, cannot be changed, if not changed within 10 years from the date of entry in the service. In the instant case workman never submitted her application/objection within 10 years of her service for correction/reassessment of her age and as such this writ petition is liable to be allowed. (IV) Even if Service Code is taken into consideration, any objection has to be made within a period of ten years whereas, in the instant case, the workman has raised objection after more than 10 years, which cannot be accepted for correction in the date of birth. (V) In the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan [ (1994) 6 SCC 302 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court was clearly of the opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to correct date of birth at the fag end of service. The Court, in very strong terms, observed as under: “… … The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register.” (VI) While dealing similar issues in the case of Manik Chand Ghosh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & others reported in 2004(1) JCR 51 (Jhr.) has held that date of birth once recorded and entered in the service record, counter-signed by the government servant, he should not be permitted to challenge the same at the fag end of his service. (VII) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Today 189 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable.” 12. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Today 189 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable.” 12. In view of facts and circumstances, judicial pronouncements and settled principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that in this case, the impugned Award dated 30.12.2009, passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 111/2003, is devoid of any merits and as such the same is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence of the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed.