ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The workman is aggrieved by the writ Court’s order dated 28th October 2021 passed in W.P.(L) No. 2866 of 2021 by which a challenge laid by the Management of Katras area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited at Dhanbad to the award dated 30th September 2020 has been accepted. The writ Court held that the workman did not made even a feeble attempt to explain the delay in raising a dispute as regards his date of birth. 2. The writ Court has held as under: “After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das and learned counsel for the respondent – Workman, Mr. Sachi Nandan Das and the judgment relied by both the sides, it appears that the admitted facts are as follows:- The workman Shahdeo Das was inducted into service on 18.09.1990 at the age of 30 years as mentioned in Form 'B'. Till 2015, workman Shahdeo Das has never raised any dispute nor filed any representation, though on 31.10.2015, he has relied upon the certificate and admit card issued by Bihar School Examination Board of the year 1987, showing his date of birth to be 05.01.1972, the respondent - Workman has denied his signature and LTI on Form 'B' during his cross-examination, but no application has been filed for correction by producing such documents by the respondent – Workman. In other words, if the workman Shahdeo Das has no knowledge that what was his date of birth/age mentioned in Form 'B', he has no occasion to file such application on 31.10.2015, meaning thereby before filing such application on 31.10.2015, the workman Shahdeo Das has every knowledge, that his age has been assessed to be 30 years in Form 'B' i.e. at the time of appointment, but during intermediate period, he was having such certificate, but he has not produced the same. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. Vs. Laxman reported in (2020) 3 SCC 419 as well as State of M.P. Vs. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. Vs. Laxman reported in (2020) 3 SCC 419 as well as State of M.P. Vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 , the application filed by the respondent – workman after 25 years of his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, in the absence, when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay and as a matter of right, correction cannot be allowed at such belated stage or at the fag end of the service, as prayed by the workman – Shahdeo Das. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 01 of 2019 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.” 3. The workman pleaded that he was appointed as a Miner/Loader on 24th September 1990 at Bhalgora. Later on he was transferred to Salanpur Colliery under M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, BCCL) as SDL Operator. According to the workman, when the BCCL did not correct his date of birth in the service records he made an application on 31st October 2015 for correcting his date of birth. This application was given to the Project Officer of Salanpur Colliery and the General Manager/Project Officer of the BCCL at Katras. The workman submitted another application on 16th September 2016 because no action was taken by the BCCL on the first application, and finally raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Appropriate Government in exercise of the powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad the following issue for adjudication: “Whether the action of the management of Salanpur Colliery under Katras Area IV of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited in denial to record the date of birth of Sri Shadeo Das (personnel No. 02860252) as per the Admit Card of the Matriculation Examination is justified. If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to.” 4. Before the Tribunal, the workman examined himself as WW1 and a co-worker, namely, Videhshwar Dusadh came in the dock as WW2 and supported his claim. If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to.” 4. Before the Tribunal, the workman examined himself as WW1 and a co-worker, namely, Videhshwar Dusadh came in the dock as WW2 and supported his claim. The workman produced original marksheet of Matriculation issued by the Bihar School Examination Board vide Ext. W-1; original Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate issued from Sri Shankar Dayal High School vide Ext. W-2; original Admit Card of Matriculation Examination of Bihar School Examination Board vide Ext.W-3; photo copy of Implementation Instruction No.76 vide Ext.W-4; photo copy of application dated 31st October 2015 vide Ext.X and; photo copy of application dated 16th September 2016 vide Ext.X-1. 5. On the other hand, the BCCL examined the Deputy Manager (Personnel) of Salanpur Colliery as MW1 who deposed before the Tribunal that in the service records including Form ‘B’ Register the age of the workman is recorded as 30 years as on 18th September 1990. His further evidence is to the effect that the workman accepted the entries therein by putting his signature and thumb impression at appropriate places in the service excerpts and statutory Form ‘B’. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and the documents, the Tribunal considered the specific issue regarding the date of birth of the workman. 7. According to the workman, he appeared in the Matriculation Examination held in the year 1987 but was declared fail. He produced the original marksheet of the Matriculation Examination and Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate issued from the High School to establish that his actual date of birth is 5th January 1972. The stand taken by the workman before the Tribunal was that in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III his date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate or School Leaving Certificate must be considered correct. On the other hand, the BCCL pleaded that the Matriculation Certificate or the School Leaving Certificate was not produced by the workman at the time of appointment. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the BCCL would submit that at best the stand of the workman was that he had shown his Matriculation Certificate at the time of his appointment. 8. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the BCCL would submit that at best the stand of the workman was that he had shown his Matriculation Certificate at the time of his appointment. 8. The Tribunal considered the evidence tendered by the workman that he had produced his Matriculation Certificate and the School Leaving Certificate but, notwithstanding that, his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service records and Form-B Register. As WW2, a co-worker, namely, Videhshwar Dusadh from Salanpur Colliery tendered evidence to the effect that he was working as Trammer at Salanpur Colliery with Shahdeo Das and he was known to him since last 15 years. This witness has stated that there was a dispute between Shahdeo Das and the Management as regards correction in the date of birth and Shahdeo Das had submitted applications on 31st October 2015 and 16th September 2016 for correction of his date of birth in the service records. This is a pertinent fact that the Management witness admitted before the Tribunal that the date of birth in Matriculation or School Leaving Certificate has to be considered as the correct date of birth of the workman. However, in the same breath this witness has stated that this shall not be applicable in the case of the workman. Still further, this witness admitted that no action was taken by the Management on the aforesaid application submitted by the workman for correction of his date of birth. 9. Now this is not in dispute, that to support its pleadings that the service records of the workman contained his signature and thumb impression, the relevant records were not produced and, thus, this as a fact is not established that in the service records the date of birth of the workman is recorded as 30 years on 18th September 1990. The Tribunal in the aforesaid background facts has rightly recorded a finding that the action of the Management in not accepting the date of birth of Shahdeo Das as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was not legal and justified. 10. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad answered the reference in favour of the respondent and made the award dated 30th September 2020 for the reasons as under: “23. 10. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad answered the reference in favour of the respondent and made the award dated 30th September 2020 for the reasons as under: “23. Now, in this case, as per Exhibit W-2 which is Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate of concerned workman it is evident that the concerned workman Shahdeo Das was a student of Sri Shankar Dayal Uchh Vidyalaya, Rowam Baghmara from 15/04/1985 where his date of birth had been recorded as 05/01/1972 and he had appeared in matriculation examination of 1987 but he didn’t pass. Further Exhibit W-3, which is admit card of concerned workman, shows that his date of birth is 05/01/1972. 24. It is required to mention here that the management has nowhere denied the certificates of the concerned workman and the provisions of I.I. No. 76 dated 05/01/1972. 25. In view of the above discussion and as per I.I. No. 76 of NCWA III the date of birth of concerned workman shall be recorded as 05/01/1972 as mentioned in his Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate and Admit Card. 26. The next point of consideration in this case is whether the concerned workman had admitted his date of birth as 30 years on the date of his appointment on 18/09/1990 and he had raised the dispute at the fag end of his service. In this regard it is required to motion here that WW-1 Shahdeo Das in his evidence has deposed that his date of birth had been arbitrarily and wrongly motioned as 30 years on 18/09/1990 and in the cross-examination he had denied that he had been given his service book on which he had put his signature and LTI, so the concerned workman has not admitted his date of birth as 30 years as on 18/09/1990. 27. Further the WW-1, Shahdeo Das has deposed that he had raised the dispute in the year 2015 and he had submitted all the documents before the management. The MW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the concerned workman had submitted his documents in the year 2015. 27. Further the WW-1, Shahdeo Das has deposed that he had raised the dispute in the year 2015 and he had submitted all the documents before the management. The MW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the concerned workman had submitted his documents in the year 2015. It is relevant to mention here that the concerned workman is due to retire in month of September 2020 as per his date of birth mentioned at the time of his appointment and he had raised the dispute in the year 2015, so it cannot be said that he had raised the dispute at the fag end of service. 28. In view of above discussion the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the date of birth of concerned workman namely Shahdeo Das is 05/01/1972 as per his Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate (Exhibit W-2) and Admit Card (Exhibit W-3). Further the Tribunal also finds that the concerned workman had appeared in the annual examination of Bihar School Examination Board in the year 1987 before joining his service on 18/09/1990. 29. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the Tribunal renders the following Award:- “The action of the management of Salanpur Colliery Under Katras Area IV of M/s. BCCL in denial to record the date of birth of Sri Shahdeo Das as per the Admit Card of the Matriculation Examination is not justified. Hence the concerned workman is entitled for relief which is as under:- The management of Salanpur Colliery Under Katras Area IV of M/s. BCCL is directed to record the date of birth of Shahdeo Das as 05/01/1972 in service record/Form ‘B’ Register and other records of M/s. BCCL, Salanpur Colliery in place of 30 years on 18/09/1990 within one month after publication of award in the Official Gazette and consequently his service will continue with all benefits as per recorded date of birth on the basis of this award. This is Award of the Tribunal.” 11. Mr. Parth Jalan, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that having regard to the nature of work and the working conditions this is a common practice amongst the coal companies that they would wrongly record a date of birth of the workman on higher side so that the workmen are retired from service at a premature age while they are able to do strenuous works and thus useful for the employer. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the BCCL refers to the statement made by the workman in the written statement to submit that the workman has nowhere stated that he had no knowledge prior to 2015 about wrong recording of his date of birth. To this, all that we can indicate is that the statements made in the written statement are not evidence and, as noticed above, there was no evidence tendered by the BCCL on this issue before the Tribunal. This is well settled a law that the findings of fact recorded by the inferior Tribunal are not open to challenge in a proceeding for certiorari. In “T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa” (1955) 1 SCR 250 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a writ of certiorari can be granted where it is established that the Court or Tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction but a wrong decision cannot be corrected by a writ of certiorari. 12. There can be no measure of doubt that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal over the orders of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, and the exercise of such powers being supervisory in nature must necessarily remain confined to the award which is made improperly or suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record or is based on the findings of fact which are perverse. The writ Court referred to the decision in “Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh” (2020) 3 SCC 411 which case arises out of a writ proceeding. The writ Court has also referred to “M/s Parry and Co. Ltd. v. P.C. Pal, Judge on the Second Industrial Tribunal Calcutta & Ors.” AIR 1970 SC 1334 wherein the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in cases of retrenchment under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was in question. Even further, the writ Court seems to be swayed away by the decision in “Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman” (2020) 3 SCC 419 and “M. P. v. Premlal Shrivas” (2011) 9 SCC 664 wherein no reasonable explanation was offered by the employee for approaching the Court about quarter a century after his induction into the service. 13. In “Kirloskar Bros. Ltd.” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. Ltd. v. Laxman” (2020) 3 SCC 419 and “M. P. v. Premlal Shrivas” (2011) 9 SCC 664 wherein no reasonable explanation was offered by the employee for approaching the Court about quarter a century after his induction into the service. 13. In “Kirloskar Bros. Ltd.” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. The case set up by the employee respondent himself is that in the year 2003 a list was published indicating date of birth of the various employees and the representations were invited. The case of the employee is that he has submitted a representation in the year 2003 for correction in the date of birth from 1-1-1956 to 1-12-1956. However, the employer had emphatically denied the same and contended in the reply that no such representation had been received, be that as it may. 4. The affidavit filed by the employee indicated that he was well aware that his date of birth had not been corrected by the employer on the basis of representation that was allegedly filed in the year 2003. Thus, it was not open to him to have waited for ten years i.e. till his date of retirement and to file a representation again and to approach the Labour Court. He slept over his right and it is also doubtful whether he had submitted representation. Even if he has submitted his representation, he could not have waited for ten years for seeking correction in the date of birth after his retirement. A perusal of the record also indicated that once the respondent himself had declared his date of birth as 1-1-1956. There is no document in service book indicating that he has ever declared his date of birth as 1-12-1956”. 14. In “Premlal Shrivas” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.” 15. The decision of the Tribunal that the date of birth of the workman is 5th January 1972 in our opinion is not a wrong decision. The Tribunal came to a finding on appreciation of the materials on record and having regard to the settled proposition that in a writ proceeding sufficiency or insufficiency of the materials cannot be canvassed, the writ Court’s interference with the award dated 30th September 2020 cannot be countenanced in law. 16. This is not a case pleaded by the BCCL that there is an apparent error of fact or law or that the Tribunal has rendered a decision in complete disregard of any provision of law. The objection that the reference was not maintainable because a dispute regarding date of birth was raised at the fag end of the service does not emanate from any rule of law. This objection before the writ Court is primarily based on the judgments wherein the writ Court declined to entertain a petition of the employee who had approached the Court at the fag end of his service. This needs no reiteration that the principles applicable in a writ proceeding on this issue cannot be applied in the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal has considered the objection regarding delay raised by the BCCL and held that even if the dispute was raised by the workman in the year 2015 such dispute cannot be considered to have been raised at the fag end of service because the workman was due to retire in September 2020. The Tribunal has considered the objection regarding delay raised by the BCCL and held that even if the dispute was raised by the workman in the year 2015 such dispute cannot be considered to have been raised at the fag end of service because the workman was due to retire in September 2020. On the other hand, the BCCL did not refer to any statutory provision which puts a prohibition on the right of the workman to approach the Tribunal/Court raising a dispute particularly a dispute on date of birth. And, just to recapitulate, the Tribunal has rendered a finding on this issue having correctly appreciated the materials laid before it. 17. In “T.C. Basappa” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the powers of the High Court are available in those cases where the Tribunal has rendered a decision on the matter on which it was not competent to enter upon an enquiry or where the judgment has been made in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or in violation of the rules of natural justice. However, no such finding has been recorded by the writ Court that in the present case the Tribunal has made the award dated 30th September 2020 on considerations which are extraneous to the materials on record or ignored some material evidence or applied a law which has made the award fundamentally wrong in law. 18. In “State of Haryana v. Devi Dutt” (2006) 13 SCC 32 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “8. The High Court ordinarily should not have interfered with the said finding of fact. We, although, do not mean to suggest that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with by the superior courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the same should be done upon application of the well-known legal principles such as: (1) when it is perverse; (2) when wrong legal principles have been applied; (3) when wrong questions were posed; (4) when relevant facts have not been taken into consideration; or (5) the findings have been arrived at on the basis of the irrelevant facts or on extraneous consideration.” 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the writ Court committed serious error in law in interfering with the award dated 30th September 2020 and, accordingly, the writ Court’s order dated 28th October 2021 is set aside. Consequently, the award dated 30th September 2020 is restored. 20. L.P.A No. 25 of 2022 is allowed.