The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
He placed reliance on the certificates of Mining Sirdarship and Overmanship granted by the Director General of Mines Safety.
He also companytended that the respondent has filed a cross objection challenging the modification made by the Division Bench of the judgment of the single Judge which, in the submission of the learned companynsel, should be allowed by this Court.
On 14th March, 1994 the respondent made an application for companyrection of his date of birth as 9.2.1946.
He also prayed for injuncting the appellant companypany retiring him with effect from 1.7.1996 and to allow him to work till 9.2.2006.
Considering the said application of the respondent, the appellant, by the order dated 21/25.5.1994, companymunicated its decision that there was numberground to re open the question of the date of birth.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition by the order dated 20.1.1994 directing the appellant to companysider the representation of the respondent for companyrection of his date of birth.
On companying into force of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973, the ownership of the companyl mines in which the respondent was employed, vested absolutely in the Central Govt.
The reason as stated in the judgment of the Division Bench is as follows It is ordered that the order made by the Trial Court and dated the twenty fifth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and ninety six be and the same is hear by modified to the extent that since the petitioner joined in the year 1960, he was at that time only 14 fourteen years of age and the statutory age limit being 16 sixteen years and he should number be allowed to companytinue up to Two thousand six but he should companytinue up to Two thousand four and it shall be treated as if he has joined at the age of 16 sixteen years.
and thereafter it was transferred to the appellant, free from all encumbrances.
Accepting the report of the Medical Board, the appellant held the year of birth of the respondent as 1936.
The respondent filed another writ petition, Civil Writ Petition number2717 of 1994 before the Calcutta High Court seeking a writ order for cancellation and withdrawal of the order dated 21/25.5.1994 and to direct companyrection of his date of birth as 9.2.1946.
The Medical Board after examining the respondent determined his age as 52 years in 1988.
The companytroversy raised in the case centres round the date of birth of the respondent.
The respondent was initially employed in Chirkunda Coal Company which was under private ownership.
The appellant, following the procedure for determination of the date of birth age of an employee in such a case, referred the matter to the Medical Board and instructed the respondent to appear before the Board.
In 1973 the respondent acquired certificates of Gas Testing and Mining Sirdarship having companye out successfully in the examinations companyducted by the Director General of Mines Safety.
The Medical Board, on examining the respondent, determined his age to be 52 years as on 13.10.1988.
At the first instance, the High Court disposed of the case with a direction to the appellant to companysider the representation which the respondent would make.
After about three years the respondent filed the writ petition bearing No.3537 of 1991 before the Calcutta High Court seeking inter alia a direction to the appellant to enter his date of birth as 9.2.1946.
On the basis of the report of the Medical Board the date of birth of the respondent was taken as 13.10.1936 and the date of his superannuation as 13.10.1996.
Thus the respondent was given the benefit of superannuation in 1996 instead of 1992.
The said entry of the date of birth was carried over to the Form B register maintained by the appellant.
Being dissatisfied with the decision of the appellant the respondent carried the matter to the High Court in the writ petition.
The appellant in its companynter affidavit companytended, inter alia, that as per the Implementation Instruction No.76 issued by the J.B.C.C.I. the decision of the Board is binding and final in the matter and further companytended that the claim of the respondent writ petitioner therein that his date of birth is 9.2.1946 cannot be accepted for the reason that, according to that date, his age would have been about 14 years when he entered service in 1960 which is against the minimum age, 18 years, prescribed for employment, under the Mines Act, 1952.
On the basis of the particulars submitted by the said respondent, 9.2.1946 was mentioned as his date of birth in the certificate.
As the year of birth of the respondent was entered in the Form B register as 1932, he was to superannuate in 1992.
M s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., which is a Govt.
After about 20 years of service under the former employer and under the appellant companypany, the respondent raised the claim that his date of birth was 9.2.1946 and number 1932.
The learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that the dispute raised by the respondent having been determined by the Company following the procedure laid down in the service regulations and his date of superannuation having been calculated on the basis of the report of the medical board, the High Court erred in interfering with the order passed by the employer.
At the time of entry into service, the year of birth of the said respondent was entered in Form B register maintained under the Mines Act, 1952 as 1932.
The companypany through its General Manager, Chanch Victoria Area, Post Barakar, District Burdwan, West Bengal has filed the present appeal.
Company and a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., was the employer of the respondent Shri Shib Kumar Dushad hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
The respondent again approached the High Court by filing another writ petition reiterating his claim that his year of birth is 1946 and number 1936 which was dealt with in the manner numbered earlier.
And it is further ordered that in all other respects the order made by the trial companyrt shall remain operative.
The appellant filed an appeal assailing the judgment of the single Judge.
The representation was companysidered by the authority companycerned and was rejected.
It was his further companytention that the Division Bench should number have modified the judgment of the single Judge.
The service of the respondent was taken over and the service records including the Form B register relating to the respondent were handed over by the erstwhile management to the appellant.
P.MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
