JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the award dated 31.02.2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.145 of 1994. The award is challenged by the petitioner, who is employer and the award was passed in favour of the respondent which is the union, representing the interest of the workman and against the employee of the petitioner namely Shri Latifkhan Shakookhan Pathan, who was working as a watchman in the City Sub-Division at Anand. By the impugned award and order, the Industrial Tribunal had declared that the respondent workman was wrongly retired on 01.07.1993, considering his date of birth on 01.07.1933, whereas his date of birth is required to be considered as 05.11.1936 and accordingly, ought to have treated as retired on 05.11.1996. The Tribunal therefore, proceeded to hold that the respondent workman is entitled to the benefit of full back-wages and other benefits with continuity of service till 05.11.1996. 2. Learned advocate Ms. Maya Desai appearing for the petitioner has immediately drawn attention of this Court to the service book which is at Annexure-IV and has also produced original of the service book which has recorded the date of birth as 01.07.1933 and that too at the time when the petitioner had entered into service. It is submitted that the petitioner is trying to seek the advantage of some interpolation made and such nterpolation is made in the service book later in point of time and there is no basis for making such interpolation. In the interpolation, the date of birth of the respondent is shown as 05.11.1936. 2.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has not at all taken into consideration the correct factual background as it has provided with only on the basis of xerox copy of the relevant page of the service book placed on record by the respondent workman to contend that the interpolation was not his responsibility and therefore, the date of birth which is scratched out in the interpolation should be treated as the correct date of birth. It is submitted that when the record itself is clear and indicating about the entry made in the service book, there was no scope of any change in the date of birth and if at all any change in the date of birth is to be made, the same is required to be made after following the due procedure. It is submitted that from the service book no such occasion had arisen for changing the date of birth of the respondent workman. Learned advocate for the petitioner has thereafter, also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that in absence of any documentary evidence regarding the date of birth, at the relevant time, the respondent workman was examined by the Medical Officer to ascertain his date of birth and the same was confirmed the date of birth as 01.07.1933, which was already entered in the service book. It is submitted that even thereafter, when the seniority list of all the employees similar to the respondent workman was declared, at that stage also, the date of birth of the respondent in the seniority list was recorded as 01.07.1933. At that stage, the respondent workman had never raised any issue with regards to his incorrect recording of date of birth. It was only when the respondent workman had retired that he has raised the issue of the date of birth. 2.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v/s. Shyam Kishor Singh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 to submit that the practice of change in the date of birth at the fag end of the career is deprecated. 2.3 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the error is committed by the Industrial Tribunal in referring and relying upon the document vide mark 12/1 which is a document attested by Mamlatdar, which is a xerox copy, a school leaving certificate. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman has opposed the petition preliminary on the ground that the respondent workman has already expired, the petitioner employer was informed about such fact and death certificate was also given, despite the petitioner has not joined the legal heirs of the respondent workman as party herein and therefore, the petition itself deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has given valid reasons when it observed the document namely the extracts of the service book, wherein clearly the date of birth reflected as 05.11.1936 was scored off and in that place, date of birth 01.07.1933 was recorded. The Industrial Tribunal has therefore, justified in holding that the date of birth which was scored off is the real date of birth as the service book which synchronized could not have interpolated behind the back of the respondent workman. It is also submitted that the issue with regards to the physical inspection to ascertain the date of birth of the respondent workman cannot be held to be a conclusive proof of his date of birth as there was no reason for the respondent workman to be subjected to any kind of test to ascertain his age. He particularly submitted that mark 12/1 which was placed on record before the Industrial Tribunal was reliable document to confirm that the age of the respondent workman as 05.11.1936. 4. The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is true that this Court has recorded in its order dated 17.10.2016 regarding the death of the respondent workman Shri Latifkhan Shakookhan Pathan however, applicant before the Tribunal was Akhil Gujarat Vidyut Kamdar Sangh through its Secretary and the respondent herein is also the same party which is represented by learned advocate Mr. C.J. Vin for the respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, objection of the respondent workman not having joined legal heirs of deceased respondent workman as party respondent is overruled. 5. The facts of the case indicate that the petitioner is a Gujarat Electricity Board, with whom, the respondent workman was engaged as a watchman and on 01.07.1993, the said workman has retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. The reference was filed in the year 1994, claiming that the respondent workman was wrongly retired on 01.07.1993 by treating the date of birth of the respondent workman as 01.07.1933. It was claimed that the real date of birth of the respondent workman was 05.11.1936 and therefore, was required to be declared as retired on 05.11.1996. 6. The reference was filed in the year 1994, claiming that the respondent workman was wrongly retired on 01.07.1993 by treating the date of birth of the respondent workman as 01.07.1933. It was claimed that the real date of birth of the respondent workman was 05.11.1936 and therefore, was required to be declared as retired on 05.11.1996. 6. At the outset, the Court has perused the service book of the respondent workman which was placed by the petitioner employer for the perusal of the Court which appeared to be in rather delicate condition. The service book was retained for the purpose of decision of this Court, especially the document which was placed on record by the respondent workman before the Industrial Tribunal. It appears that the Industrial Tribunal was not able to appreciate the said document which was a xerox copy, whereas this Court had advantage to examine the document in original which indicates that in the relevant page coming out the detail of respondent-workman in Column No.5 originally the date of birth is stated as 01.07.1933 which apparently is in the same ink in which rest of the details including the signature of the deceased workman was made. Thereafter, just below the date 01-07-1933, it is recorded in blue ink and it is stated that “birth date is being corrected as 05.11.1936 instead 01.07.1933 as per Hon’ble Second Class Magistrate, Kaira dated 25.09.1973”. The aforesaid write up in the service book clearly indicates the change made in the date of birth from 01.07.1933 to 05.11.1936, which was subsequent recording of the date of birth at the initiate stage. From the record, no such procedure has been complied with for making amendment in the service book of the respondent workman nor was it claimed by the respondent workman that any cause of action had arisen for him to make the amendment of the date of birth in the service book. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the date of birth of the respondent workman was 05.11.1936. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the date of birth of the respondent workman was 05.11.1936. In fact, the communication dated 20.06.1961 which is an inter office correspondence would indicate that the respondent workman was subjected to examination by the Civil Surgeon for the purpose of fixing the date of birth in absence of any reliable document regarding his date of birth and the certificate was issued by the Civil Surgeon which certified the age of the respondent workman as 25 years as on the year 1958. It appears that based on such verification, the date of birth appears to have been confirmed in the service record and thereafter, nothing is coming on record as to what required the change in the date of birth. 7. The mere reliance by the Industrial Tribunal on mark 12/1 which is so called school leaving certificate of another State merely attested by the Mamlatdar of Borsad and bearing seal and signature of Executive Magistrate, Borsad cannot be treated to be a conclusive proof of the date of birth so as to correct the date of birth recorded in the service book. There is no manner of doubt in the mind of the Court that originally the birth date recorded in the service book at the time when the respondent workman entered into service was 01.07.1933 for the reasons observed in preceding paras and has been subsequently sought to be changed to a new date of birth and such an action without there being any legal proceedings or background, is not acceptable to this Court and in fact and when such subsequent entry made has been scored off. 8. The Apex Court in decision of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (Supra), has held as under:- “12. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of this Court relating the very same employer namely, the appellants herein in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birasa Uranw, wherein this Court with reference to the earlier decisions of this Court has upheld the order of the High Court wherein a direction had been issued to effect the change in the date of birth. Having perused the same we are of the opinion that the said decision cannot render assistance to the respondent herein. Having perused the same we are of the opinion that the said decision cannot render assistance to the respondent herein. This is for the reason that in the said case it was taken note that in 1987 on implementation of the National Coal Wage Agreement (iii) was put into operation for stabilising the service records of the employees and all its employees were provided a chance to identify and rectify the discrepancies in the service records by providing them a nomination form containing details of their service records. In the cited case the respondent (employee) therein had noticed the inconsistencies in the records regarding his date of birth, date of appointment, father’s name and permanent address and availed the opportunity to seek correction. Though he had sought for the correction of the errors, the other discrepancies were set right but the date of birth and the date of appointment had however remained unchanged and it is in that view the employee had again raised a dispute regarding the same and the judicial remedy was sought wherein the benefit was extended to him. 13. On the other hand, in the instant case, as on the date of joining and as also in the year 1987 when the respondent had an opportunity to fill up the Nomination Form and rectify the defect if any, he had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950 and had further reiterated the same when Provident Fund Nomination Form was filled in 1998. It is only after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service, for the first time in the year 2009 he had made the representation. Further the respondent did not avail the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before retirement. Instead, the respondent retired from service on 31.03.2010 and even thereafter the writ petition was filed only in the year 2014, after four years from the date of his retirement. In that circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by the High Court was not justified.” 9. The Court does not find any reason to accept the case of the respondent-workman insofar as the change in the date of birth is concerned. In that circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by the High Court was not justified.” 9. The Court does not find any reason to accept the case of the respondent-workman insofar as the change in the date of birth is concerned. The main aspect which is required to be considered is that the seniority list of Class-IV employees as on 01.04.1989 for Anand City decision was declared, where the name of the respondent workman as a watchman was also reflected and his date of birth is shown as 01.07.1933. At that stage also, there was no grievance raised by the respondent-workman in connection with this case and therefore, has accepted the date of birth being 01.07.1933 even at the relevant time. The Industrial Tribunal has committed a grave error in accepting the claim of the respondent workman who had retired in the year 1993 by accepting the reference of 1994 post retirement and though the respondent workman has not worked for a singe day after the date of his retirement, has erroneously proceeded to grant full back-wages as if the respondent has continued to work till 05.11.1996 and such award was pronounced on 31.01.2005. 10. By an additional affidavit, it has come on record that the widow of respondent-workman has placed on record certain cheques which go on to indicate that on the date of retirement, the respondent workman has received the retirement benefits. 11. For the forgoing reasons, the Court deems it fit to interfere with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and hence, award dated 31.01.2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.145 of 1994 is quashed and set aside. The application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The Court orders that the service book given in sealed cover be returned to the petitioner-board. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.