JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petitions, a common award has been challenged and hence, the same are heard and decided analogously by the common order. 2. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective parties waive service of notice of rule. 3. In the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.14537 of 2018 of the petitioner, Deputy Conservator of Forest has challenged the award dated 15.12.2017 passed in Complaint (IT) No.7 of 2016 filed in Reference (IT) No.20 of 2010 directing the authority to reinstate the workman in service without back wages. 4. In Special Civil Application No.21447 of 2019, the workman has challenged the same award denying him the back wages. 5. The workman-Balusinh Navalsinh Solanki was serving under the Deputy Conservator of Forest. It appears that he filed Reference (IT) No.20 of 2010 and pending the reference, it appears that the workman was made to retire from service on 01.01.2014, without any issuance of notice or following any legal procedure on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Election Card as 01.01.1994. Accordingly, the workman filed Complaint (IT) No.7 of 2016 challenging such action under the provision of under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act). The Tribunal, after hearing the respective parties, has set aside such forceful retirement of workman from service however, the back wages are denied. 6. Learned AGP appearing for the State authorities has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside since it was found that the date of birth recorded in the Election Card of the workman is 01.01.1994 and his age is shown as 42 years and based upon such date of birth, the State has retired the workman w.e.f. 01.01.2014 in the routine procedure since he has completed 60 years of age. He has submitted that the Tribunal did not appreciate the aforesaid fact in its true perspective and placed reliance on the birth certificate of the workman, which was produced by the workman for proving his date of birth as 01.06.1966. He has submitted that such birth certificate should not have been considered by the Tribunal. 7. He has submitted that the Tribunal did not appreciate the aforesaid fact in its true perspective and placed reliance on the birth certificate of the workman, which was produced by the workman for proving his date of birth as 01.06.1966. He has submitted that such birth certificate should not have been considered by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for the workman has submitted that the impugned award, so far as the order of reinstatement of the workman is concerned, the same does not require to be interfered with since admittedly, the birth certificate, which was produced by the workman, was not doubted by the respondent authorities. He has submitted that it is not the case of the authorities that the birth certificate is forged and concocted and hence, the date of birth, which is recorded in the birth certificate being 01.06.1966 has to be treated as final for all purposes. He has submitted that as per the said date of birth, the workman would be retiring on 01.06.2026. 8. So far as the denial of back wages is concerned, learned advocate Mr.Patel has submitted that the workman has specifically contended and made a statement below Exh.13 that he was unemployed however, the back wages are only denied on the ground that he was lethargic in producing the birth certificate at the time of appointment. He has submitted that such reason for denying the back wages is illegal and arbitrary and hence, the Court may direct the authorities to pay appropriate back wages. 9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 10. It is not in dispute that during pendency of the Reference (IT) No.20 of 2010, which was filed by the workman, the department retired the workman from service by treating his date of birth as 01.01.1994 on the basis of the Election Card. He was made to retire on 01.01.2014. 11. It is the case of the workman that without issuance of notice or calling upon any explanation from him, he was illegally retired from service. It is also not in dispute that the workman had produced his birth certificate showing his date of birth as 01.06.1966. The said birth certificate is never doubted by the authorities. It is not the case of the department that the said certificate is forged or concocted. It is also not in dispute that the workman had produced his birth certificate showing his date of birth as 01.06.1966. The said birth certificate is never doubted by the authorities. It is not the case of the department that the said certificate is forged or concocted. The Tribunal, after placing reliance on such birth certificate, has set aside the action of the department of treating him retired on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Election Card. 12. It is well settled proposition of law that the birth certificate would prevail over any other documents. The birth certificate was issued on the basis of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004. 13. Under the circumstances, no illegality or perversity can be found in the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of prematurely retiring the workman on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Election Card. So far as the denial of back wages is concerned, the workman had specifically contended that he had remained unemployed and the Tribunal has very cursorily denied the entire back wages only for the reason that he was unable to produce the birth certificate at the relevant time, when he was appointed. In the considered opinion of this Court, such reasoning for denying the entire back wages is uncalled for hence, the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 is modified to the extent that the respondents shall pay 25% back wages to the workman-Balusinh Navalsinh Solanki within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. 14. Special Civil Application No.14537 of 2018 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 15. Special Civil Application No.21447 of 2019 filed by the workman is allowed in part. Rule made absolute tot he aforesaid extent. 16. Registry to place a copy of this order in the connected matter.