ORDER : I.A. No. 1592 of 2020 The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 240 days in filing the instant appeal though as per stamp reporting, there is delay of 165 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1592 of 2020 is allowed and the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 109 of 2020 The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (L) No. 235 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the Award dated 16.04.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhanbad in Ref. No. 58 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the Award has been passed by holding the workman to be continued in service accepting his date of birth as 07.06.1948. If he has superannuated in the meantime, the Management to clear up his dues forthwith within three months. 6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under: The workman, namely, Ganesh Turi, Ex. T.R. Worker Amolo Dohri Area Project was the employee of Central Coalfields Limited. As per the record maintained in the Office of the petitioner-company, the date of birth of said Ganesh Turi was recorded as 09.06.1935. As per the norms of the Central Coalfields Limited, the workman superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years treating his date of birth as 09.06.1935. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1987 all the employees were supplied with the service excerpts and in the said service excerpts, the date of birth of the respondent workman was indicated as 09.06.1935 and the workman was directed to raise objection, if any but in spite of all the particulars, the workman did not object and return the service excerpts without objection in respect of the date of birth. It is the further case of the petitioner–company that at the fag end of the service career, the workman raised an industrial dispute claiming his date of birth as 07.06.1948 though the Form-B Register which is a statutory register, shows his date of birth as 09.06.1935 and which bears the thumb impression of the workman. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 14.08.1988, the Central Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication which was instituted as Reference Case No. 58 of 1998. On being noticed, the Central Coalfields Limited appeared and filed written statement-rejoinder before the learned Tribunal. The respondent workman also filed his written statement claiming his date of birth as 07.06.1948. Thereafter the matter was heard on merit and vide order award dated 16.04.2013, learned Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman-respondent and held that “the action of the management of Amlo Project, C.C.L. In superannuating Sri Ganesh Turi, T.R. Worker by not correcting his date of birth as per C.M.P.F. Records is illegal and not justified. Therefore, the workman's service continuity be maintained accepting his date of birth 07.06.1948. If he is superannuated in the meantime, the management to clear up his dues forthwith preferably within 3 months. The petitioner Management, being aggrieved with the aforesaid Award, challenged the same before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 235 of 2014 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the extract of CMPF Register but discarded the Form-B the Register which is a statutory register. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the Award vide order dated 06.07.2019 against which the present intra-court has been filed. 7. It is the case of the workman, as per the material available on record that he has entered in the service before nationalization of the coal industry and when his services have been taken over due to the effect of the nationalization of the coal industry, there was no entry of the date of birth in Form-B and, as such, correspondence was made by the CCL authorities to the CMPF authorities asking the date of birth of the workman which has been furnished by the CMPF authorities to be 07.06.1948. The writ petitioner-Management, did not accept the aforesaid date of birth, rather has inserted the date of birth to be 09.06.1935 in the Form-B and as per the writ petitioner-Management, the thumb impression of the workman was also taken therein. When the notice of superannuation was issued to the workman, dispute was raised which ultimately culminated into the Reference Case No. 58 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the reference has been made to the effect that: “Whether the action of the management of Amlo Project, CCL in superannuating Sri Ganesh Turi, T.R. Worker by not correcting his date of birth as per form “B” Register, C.M.P.F. Records etc. is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” The Adjudicator, i.e. Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad had initiated a proceeding for the purpose of answering the reference and in course thereof, the written statement has been filed by the workman, wherein he has inter alia taken the stand the that his age was 25 years on 17.08.1972, but even then the workman was superannuated from service treating his date of birth to be 09.06.1935. The learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the date of birth as mentioned in the CMPF record to be 07.06.1948 and discarding his date of birth mentioned in Form-B since the same was not duly been sealed and signed by the competent authority, answered the reference in favour of the workman by passing the following Award which reads hereunder as: “AWARD: By Order No. L-20012/653/1997-IR- (C-1), dt. 14/08/1998, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal: SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of Amlo Project, CCL in Superannuating Sri Ganesh Turi, T.R. worker by not Correcting his date of birth as per form “B” Register, C.M.P.F records etc. is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” 2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 01.09.1998. After notice both parties are appeared. The workman/Union files their written statement on 30.06.1999. is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” 2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 01.09.1998. After notice both parties are appeared. The workman/Union files their written statement on 30.06.1999. The short point is that the Date of Birth of the workman as mentioned in Form “B” register as 09.06.1935 or the Date of Birth mentioned in Extract of CMPF Register maintained from 07.11.1973 as 07.06.1948 is correct. 3. In this case on the basis of the Form “B” Date of Birth is 09.06.1935 and the workman has been superannuated. But on close scrutiny of the CMPF register extract and letter to Deputy Personnel Manager Amlo Project from Asstt. Provident fund commissioner the Date of Birth of workman as 07.06.1948 which is document sent at the earliest point of time. The CMPF Register has been maintained by the provident Deptt. From 07.11.1993, is much more authentic. But the workman being illiterate has not stated anything regarding the CMPF register. No suggestion was given to workman that CMPF register is tampered. 4. The Form “B” register filed by the management does not beat seal of the company, no date is mentioned there. The workman was illiterate, taking of his L.T.I. there not within his knowledge. The Management if any doubt could has referred him for medical board. Since that has not been done. 5. The Date of birth in the CMPF Register 07.06.1948 is accepted. His superannuation has been done illegally much before. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the action of the management of Amlo Project, C.C.L. in superannuating Sri Ganesh Turi T.R. worker by not correcting his date of birth as per C.M.P.F. records is illegal & justified, Therefore the workman’s service continuity be maintained accepting his Date of Birth 07.06.1948. If he is superannuated in the meantime the management to clear up his dues forthwith preferably within 3 months.” The CCL, being aggrieved with the aforesaid Award, has challenged the same by filing writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 235 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.07.2019 by declining to interfere with the Award, against which the present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, has assailed the impugned order by taking the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the very basis of the dispute wherein the date of birth although was mentioned in the Form-B as 09.06.1935 and in the CMPF record as 07.06.1948 and in that view of the matter as per the Instruction No. 76, the Medical Board ought to have been constituted and if the Medical Board has not been constituted which was to be constituted by the petitioner, then the learned Tribunal ought to have passed order for determination of the age of the workmen by a duly constituted Medical Board but having not passed an Award to that effect and holding the date of birth of the workman as 07.06.1948 by discarding the date of birth as mentioned in the Form-B as 09.06.1935, since the same is absolutely not based on any document, hence, the Award suffers from perversity. Further, the writ petitioner-appellant has also taken the ground while questioning the Award that the dispute was raised after three years from retirement and hence, the dispute pertaining to date of birth cannot be allowed to be raised after retirement. According to the learned counsel appearing for the CCL, the aforesaid fact has duly been raised before the learned Single Judge but it has not been appreciated and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from illegality and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. While on the other hand, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the Award passed by the learned Tribunal by taking the ground that it is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioner-CCL that Instruction No. 76 ought to have been considered while deciding the reference by the Tribunal, reason being that once the reference has been made before the Tribunal then it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to answer the reference. It will be either a yes or no. It will be either a yes or no. In no circumstances, the Tribunal can pass an order for constitution of Medical Board, since, the duty to constitute the Medical Board as per Instruction No. 76, is upon the CCL, the employer, and if it has failed to discharge its obligation by not referring the case of the workman, if it was fit to be referred, then for that the worker cannot be made to suffer. It has further been contended that the argument which has been advanced to show interference in the impugned Award to the effect that if there was discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in the Form-B and the CMPF record, the issue ought to have been decided by the Tribunal but the same cannot be held to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case due to the reason that Form-B stands discarded by the Tribunal for the reason that the Form-B was having no seal and sign of the competent authority save and except the thumb impression of the workman and in that view of the matter the Management cannot emphasize upon the date of birth mentioned in Form-B and in absence of any seal and signature, Form-B cannot be said to be an authenticated document. Therefore, submission has been made that in absence of authenticated Form-B the only document referring the date of birth is CMPF document and that too, the said date of birth has been called upon by the Management itself by making correspondence with the CMPF authority but even then the same has not been relied. Learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid ground has submitted that the Award has been passed by taking into consideration the date of birth recorded in the CMPF record and if the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the same, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error and accordingly the writ petition is having no merit. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 11. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 11. The undisputed fact herein is that when the respondent-workman has joined the service, he was not an employee of the CCL, rather, on the basis of the effect of the nationalization of the coal industry, the respondent-workman was taken under the regular establishment of the CCL and thereby he has become the employee of the CCL. The writ petitioner-Management, after taking over the services of the workman, has started preparing the service excerpts. The date column in Form-B register was blank and the appellant could not produce any proof in support of his date of birth at the time of appointment and agreed to submit the proof subsequently and at the time of writing the service-sheet he produced the proof and, as such, the date of birth of the workman was recorded as 09.06.1935 in the Form-B. The aforesaid statement has been made at paragraph 13 of the written statement filed by the CCL, for ready reference paragraph 13 is quoted hereunder as: “(13) That the contents of para 3 of the written statements of the workman are not fully correct. It is admitted that he was appointed on 17.6.72 initially at Dhori colliery and continued to work at Amlo Project which was previously a part of Dhori Colliery. It is wrong to suggest that his date was recorded as 25 years on 17.8.72 in the form B register. The date column in the form ‘B’ register was remaining blank, as he could not produce any proof in support of his age at the time of his appointment and agreed to submit the proof subsequently. He submitted the proof at the time of writing the service sheet and, accordingly, in his service sheet, his date of birth has been indicated as 9.6.1935. It appears that subsequently, he managed to get his age column filled up by manipulation.” The respondent-workman, when superannuated from service by treating his date of birth to be 09.06.1935, he raised dispute by showing the blatant discrepancy in the decision taken by the CCL Management in superannuating the workman on the basis of date of birth to be 09.06.1935 instead of 07.06.1948 even though the CMPF has certified the date of birth to be 07.06.1948. The dispute was raised and accordingly, the reference was made by the appropriate Government, as quoted and referred hereinabove, which finally has been answered in favour of the workman holding the workman’s date of birth as 09.06.1948. The said order has been challenged by the writ petitioner but the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the Award and, accordingly, the instant appeal has been filed. 12. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that the learned Tribunal ought to have passed an Award for referring the matter of the workman for its age determination before the Medical Board as per Instruction No. 76. In this context, the Instruction No. 76 is required to be referred herein which reads hereunder as: Procedure for Determination/ Verification of age of Employees (A) … … … (B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees: (i) a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/ Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of employment. (i) b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i)(a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. (ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/ Medical Board. (C) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age.” It is evident from Clause (C) that the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board will be constituted for the eventuality as mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) or (B)(ii) by the Management. In the case of an employee whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age. 13. The argument has been advanced that the Tribunal ought to have referred the matter before the Medical Board. The question arises, as would appear from Clause (C) of Instruction No. 76 that the duty has been casted upon the Management in pursuance to the aforesaid instruction for constituting the Medical Board and not upon the Adjudicator and if in the view of the Management there is discrepancy in the date of birth of the workman then it was well available for the CCL Management to constitute a Medical Board and to refer the case of the workman for determination of the age but the Management has failed to discharge its duty as per the requirement of Instruction No. 76. 14. This Court is making an observation that the Management has failed to discharge its obligation, reason being that Instruction No. 76 is also a bilateral contract which has the statutory fervor in view of the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 14. This Court is making an observation that the Management has failed to discharge its obligation, reason being that Instruction No. 76 is also a bilateral contract which has the statutory fervor in view of the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates that any settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement, meaning thereby, that Instruction No. 76 is also a bipartite settlement and, hence, in view of the provision of Section 18(1) of the Act, 1947, the same binds both the parties. 15. The Management is taking the ground that the Adjudicator, the learned Tribunal, ought to have referred the matter before the Medical Board, the question is that the power to constitute the Medical Board is upon the Management and not upon the Adjudicator and further, once the reference has been made, the occasion to refer the matter before the Medical Committee does not arise, rather, the Adjudicator is required to answer the reference by calling upon the other side in view of the provision of Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the Management that the Tribunal ought to have passed an Award for referring the matter before duly constituted Medical Board, according to our considered view, is rejected. 16. The second ground has been agitated that there is discrepancy in the date of birth, both in Form-B and CMPF Register. The discrepancy said to have occurred in Form-B will be only said to be a discrepancy if it is considered to be a valid document, meaning thereby, if the Form-B contains the seal and signature of the competent authority. Admittedly herein, as per the admission of the Management as under paragraph 13 of the written statement, the Form-B was blank and that is the reason the date of birth has been sought for from the CMPF authority by making communication, basis upon which, the date of birth has been reported by the CMPF authority as 07.06.1948. Admittedly herein, as per the admission of the Management as under paragraph 13 of the written statement, the Form-B was blank and that is the reason the date of birth has been sought for from the CMPF authority by making communication, basis upon which, the date of birth has been reported by the CMPF authority as 07.06.1948. The CCL Management has not accepted the date of birth as referred by CMPF authority as 07.06.1948, rather they have accepted the date of birth to be 09.06.1935 as has been referred by the Management in Form-B. The Management, therefore, comes out with the case that there is discrepancy in the date of birth, both in the Form-B and CMPF record, since in the Form-B 09.06.1935 has been mentioned while in the CMPF record it has been mentioned as 07.06.1948. 17. The question will be that when the date of birth 09.06.1935, as shown to have been mentioned by the Management in Form-B, does not contain the seal and signature of the competent authority, what is the legal validity of the same? 18. Further, the CMPF authority, being the Central Organization, if, on communication made by the CCL authority, for furnishing the date of birth and if the date of birth has been referred by the CMPF authority mentioning the date of birth to be 07.06.1948 and when the same has been accepted by the Tribunal while answering the reference, which according to our considered view, the finding based upon the same by the Adjudicator/learned Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from an error. 19. More so, though the Management has accepted the fact about Form-B having blank column and has taken the ground that on the basis of proof of date of birth provided by the workman, his date of birth was recorded as 09.06.1935 in the Form-B but what proof was provided by the workman has not been disclosed by the Management. 20. Further, there is no dispute about the settled position of law that the dispute pertaining to date of birth cannot be raised after retirement but it is the settled position of law that the proposition laid down in this regard is to be tested on the basis of facts and circumstances of given case as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 75 at paragraph 47 which is quoted hereunder: “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” The question arises that if there is fault lies on the part of the Management by making reference of date of birth of the workman to be 09.06.1935 without any basis since it is the case of the Management that on the basis of the proof provided by the workman, but what was that proof has not been disclosed by the Management coupled with the fact that the date of birth was furnished by the CMPF authority on the requisition made by the CCL Management, but even the CCL Management has created a dispute by not accepting the date of birth provided by the CMPF, rather, without any basis the date of birth has been mentioned in Form-B as 09.06.1935 then this Court consider it to be laches committed on the part of the Management and it is settled position of law that if there is laches on the part of the party, they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own laches, position of law is well settled as referred by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 447 , wherein at paragraphs-14, 15 and 16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: “14. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court in Mrutunjay Pani vs. Narmada Bala Sasmal, AIR 1961 SC 1353 wherein it was held by this Court that where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). 15. This is based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). 15. … This Court (at SCC p. 142, Para 28) referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Edn.) p. 191 wherein it was stated: “It is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure.” 16. It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, “a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong”.” Further, in Advanta India Limited vs. B.N. Shivanna and Another, (2018) 14 SCC 666 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe at para-20 which reads as under: 20. After going through the record, we find that the BCI has shown undue indulgence to the respondent by allowing him to take advantage of his own wrong, in the guise of exercising its review power. It is a case of nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria meaning thereby that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong. This maxim is explained in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank in the following manner: (SCC p. 217, Para 66) “66. The maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria has a clear mandate of law that, a person who by manipulation of a process frustrates the legal rights of others, should not be permitted to take advantage of his wrong or manipulations.” 21. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 . 22. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 . 22. This Court has already referred hereinabove that the dispute of date of birth cannot be allowed to be raised at the fag end, herein, although the dispute of date of birth has been raised after superannuation of the workman but fact remains that the date of birth referred by the CMPF authority on the requisition made by the CCL Management itself has been shown to be 07.06.1948 and the date of birth as contained in the record of CMPF authority, being the Central Organization, the Management cannot have any reason to disbelieve it. The reference of the judgment since has been made that the party who has committed any laches cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own laches is well applicable in the fact and circumstances of the instant case and hence, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the appellant will not be applicable in the facts of the present case, otherwise the Management on its own will create a dispute and will take the plea that the dispute in the date of birth cannot be allowed to be raised at the fag end. The principle can be said to be applicable if there will be bonafide on the part of the Management. Here, the approach of the Management cannot be said to be bonafide since it is the Management who had colled for the date of birth from CMPF. The CMPF, when provided the same, it has been disputed without corroborating it by constituting Medical Board as required under Instruction No. 76 and all of a sudden superannuated the workman. 23. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and coming back to the Award as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the considered view that the finding of the learned Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from an error based upon the discussion made hereinabove. 24. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.