w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Syed Samsad Ahmed alias S. Shamsaad Ahmed v/s The IISCO Steel Plant (SAIL) & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148

Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849

Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033

Company & Directors' Information:- C P S STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104TZ2003PTC010552

Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047

Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270

Company & Directors' Information:- AHMED AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27320DL1997PTC086861

Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852

Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691

Company & Directors' Information:- IISCO STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2008PLC177632

Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344

Company & Directors' Information:- Y D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109WB1997PTC086155

Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206

Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880

Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340

Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498

Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670

Company & Directors' Information:- E & G STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28113PN2009PTC134643

Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

Company & Directors' Information:- H & G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109KL2020PTC063443

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL PLANT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH1959PTC011311

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588

Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915

Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808

Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259

Company & Directors' Information:- A M Q STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310UP2012PTC053823

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266

Company & Directors' Information:- T AHMED & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900WB1947PTC014930

Company & Directors' Information:- M S AHMED & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1932PTC007608

Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811

Company & Directors' Information:- M K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066480

Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426

Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566

Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983

Company & Directors' Information:- R B R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103PB2013PTC037791

Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742

Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625

Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1947PTC015981

Company & Directors' Information:- J. AHMED AND COMPANY LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999MH1954PLC009225

    S.A.T. No. 599 of 2013

    Decided On, 10 March 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD

    For the Appellant: Pinaki Dhole, Z. Rahaman, Advocates. For the Respondents: S. Pal, L.K. Pal, B.B. Bhuiya, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.6.2012 and 25.6.2012 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Asansol in Title Appeal No. 4 of 2012 setting aside the judgment dated 26.9.2011 and decree dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Asansol in Title Suit No. 30 of 2008, inter alia, on the grounds that the Court of Appeal has failed to appreciate that the condition precedent for application of the provision of Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the ‘Individual Workman’, is dismissal, termination of service, but in the instant case the plaintiff-appellant has been wrongly superannuated from the service before attaining the age of superannuation so the provision of Section 2A has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the case, and dispute as regard date of birth of an individual workman is beyond the scope and ambit of the industrial dispute being a Civil dispute amenable to the Civil Court. So on this point finding of the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below is erroneous and as such the judgment and decree complained of is liable to be set aside.It is pointed out that the learned Appeal Court below has failed to appreciate the finding of the learned Trial Judge of the Court below as regards provision of Section 2K of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and to get round the same relied on Section 2A of the said Act, 1947 and found the plaintiff-appellant even being ‘Workman’ is coming within the purview of Section 2A of the said Act 1947 without appreciating scope and ambit of the said Section in the case of dispute as regards date of birth of an individual workman so the finding of the learned Judge of the Court Appeal below discarding the finding of the learned Trial Judge of the Court below is not sustainable in law and has failed to appreciate that the certified Stading Orders of Steel Authority of India Limited IISCO Steel Plant Burnpur has been framed under Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 having a statutory force and in Order No. 34 of the said Standing Order has specifically laid down provisions as regard verification and recording the age in the Service Book, but the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below without considering the same has relied on the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and allowed the Appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge of the Court below, which is liable to be set aside.It is further pointed out that the learned Court of Appeal below has failed to appreciate that Order 32 of the said certified Standing Orders provide for grant of certificate of service, in respect of discharge or termination of service, resignations or retirement. In the instant case the authority concerned has granted certificate to the plaintiff-appellant for retirement from the service on attaining the age of superannuation so the same cannot be treated as ‘termination’ ‘discharge’ from the service so under this circumstances the plaintiff-appellnat not being discharged/terminated from the service as penal measure cannot come under the purview of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is out and out a dispute as regard date of birth, which being an individual workman dispute is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that learned Court ought to have held that the plaintiff-appellant has submitted all relevant original documents as regards his date of birth in the year 1972 at the time of his initial appointment to the post of Khalashi such as, Admit Card, Mark-Sheet, School Leaving Certificate as per Order 34 of the said Standing Order and in that event reliance on the Medical Report determining the age of the plaintiff-appellant is violative of the provision of proviso (vii) of Order 34 of the said Standing Order which provides for determination of age by the Medical Board in absence of submission of documents in support of his age/date of birth, but it is claimed that the plaintiff-appellant had all relevant documents aforesaid in support of his date of birth and were produced at the time of entry into service.It is further submitted that Medical Report as regard the age of the appellant was neither produced nor proved before the learned Trial Court and which has been discarded by the said trial Court under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1872 so the finding of the learned Court of Appeal below relying on the Medical Report as regards the age of the appellant suffers from non application of mind.Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the defendant-respondents that the age of the plaintiff-appellant has been ascertained by Medical Examination as he did not produce any document in support of proof of his age.The Court of Appeal below has clearly observed that plaintiffappellant put his left thumb impression instead of signature which gave rise to misgiving in the mind of the Court as to the intension of the plaintiff-appellant towards suppressing material facts as being a School Final passed in 1968 otherwise he ought to have put his signature in 1972 while entering in service.It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Medical Report in respect of the examination of the appellant in proof of his age has not been produced before the Court and it means the plaintiff-appellant was referred to a single Medical Officier and not before any Medical Board and as such the Medical Examination Report on which the defendant respondent has relied to contend that the age of the plaintiff-appellant was 24 years as on 15.02.1972 cannot be accepted.At the time of admission of the appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed:-1. Whether Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is applicable in the case of superannuation of individual workman when it is not a case of dismissal or termination from service.2. Whether the medical test of an individual workman can be a determining the age of superannuation of an employee attaining the age of 60 years without considering the date of birth of an employee recorded in the Admit Card of the School Final Examination, School Leaving Certificate which are authentic admissible document as regard the age.3. Right to superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Admit Card of School Final Examination and School Leaving Certificate as an authentic document and cannot be determined on the age on medical test which is not authentic but more presumptive, which deprive of the appellant from his actual date of retirement on March 15, 2011 on the basis of his date of birth on March 15, 1951 instead of May 20, 2008.4. Whether age dispute of an individual workman can be determined under the priovision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as an when the order No. 34 of the certified standing order for the Steel Authority of India Ltd. IISCO Steel Plant Burnpur framed under Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946.It is submitted on behalf of the defendant-respondent that a contract of a personal service cannot be enforced in a Civil Court and the appellant being a workman alleging dispute as to his date of birth in the service record, such dispute comes within the mischief of definition clause 2K of Industrial Dispute Act. In my view in the given facts of the case for correction of date of birth in the service record of the plaintiffapppellant and suit for declaration thereof before a Civil Court is not maintainable as the defendant-respondent is a State Instrumentality as enshrined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and a writ Court has already decided the case of the plaintiff-appellant holding that the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant would not be maintainable when he approached the Court at the fag end of his career for direction upon the defendant-respondent for correction of date of birth. Therefore, the writ Court directed the plaintiff-appellant to seek alternative remedy if available. Ergo, I am of considered view that the provision of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 would be attracted because the case relates to a dispute as to the termination of the plaintiff-appellant upon notice of superannuation and for correction of date of birth disputing the notice of superannuation issued by defendant-respondent.The moot question of law germen to the instant appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant can invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for declaration with regard to his date of birth in his service record challenging the notice of superannuation, not to be given effect to.It emerges from the material placed on record and from the judgment impugned that the plaintiff-appellant entered into the service of the respondent company and was appointed as khalasi on 15.02.1972. In this regard it is reiterated on behalf of the respondent that the plaintiff-appellant did not produce any certificate as proof of his age or date of birth whereas on the date of entry into service, he had put his thumb impression on the interview slip Exhibit-B and no date of birth was disclosed by him as such age of the plaintiff-appellant was ascertained through medical examination and he was found to be 24 years of age as on 15.02.2972 and accordingly, the said fact has been recorded in his Service Record Card (S.R. Card) Exhibit-A and his age was ascertained as per the Order no. 34 of Standing Orders of IISCO Steel Plant Burnpur which provides for verification and recording of age.The terms of order 34 (a) (vii) enjoins that Admit Card issued by any recognized University/Board issued before the employee joined the Company’s services; the age/date of birth so verified on the basis of any of these documents shall be recorded in the Service Record of the employee concerned by the Personnel Department of the Company. provided that if an employee is unable to produce any of the above mentioned documents, he/she may produce any other document in support of his/her age/date of birth, which may be accepted at the discretion of the management, as the authentic proof of his/her age/date of birth and the same shall be recorded in the Service Record of the employee concerned by the Personnel Department of the Company and provided further that in any case where the employee concerned is not satisfied with the decision of the management in this regard, or in a case where the employee concerned is not in a position to produce any document in support of his/her age/date of birth, his/her age shall be determined by a Medical Board to be constituted by the company for the purpose. The age of the employee concerned so determined by the Medical Board shall be recorded in the Service Record of the employee concerned by the Personnel Department of the Company.Adverting to the aforesaid Standing Order, it is contended that since the plaintiff-appellant at the time of his appointment had not submitted any document of proof of his age for recording his date of birth in S.R. Card (Exhibit-A), the appellant was examined by the Medical Board and this fact is noted in the said S.R Record that the appellant was aged 24 years as on the date of appointement on the basis of the Medical Examination.It is further pointed out that the appellant has relied on Admit Card (Exhibit-6) and School Leaving Certificate (Exhibit-8) in proof of his age that the appellant’s date of birth was on 15.03.1951 and has claimed as such on the basis of Exhibit-6 to 11 but it would appear that duplicate copy of Admit Card No. 1370 of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education issued on 29.9.2004 and School Final Examination of the appellant was commenced on 11.03.1968. That is to say, at the time of appointment on 15.02.1972 the appellant must be in possession of the said Admit Card but he did not produce it at the time of joining his post as Khalasi. Therefore, the age of the appellant was assessed by medical examination as 24 years as on 15.02.1972.It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that the plaintiffappellant has claimed date of birth as on 15.03.1951 and also claimed his date of birth on 01.01.1953 as per gate pass issued by CISF Exhibit14 and P.F. Certificate issued by P.F. Authority and such date of birth was on the self declaration by the appellant. It would appear that the date of birth as per the Admit Card of the appellant is not as per the admission register.Now, it would be profitable to take note of the settled principle of law that an employee has no legal right to maintain a suit for declaration as to his date of birth who knocks the door of Court or the tribunal for such declaration at the far end of his career.As discussed above, S.R. Card of the appellant shows his Identity Card no. 24829 and that he was appointed as khalasi on 15.02.1972 which has been certified by the authority of the respondent company with effect from 01.8.1972 and since he had not produced the documents in proof of his age, medical examination was conducted to ascertain his age pursuant to the proviso to the Order 34 of Standing Order of respondent. It means that the appellant had not submitted any document of age proof on the date of entry into the service.In the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s BCCI & Ors. [2007 (3) JLJR 726] it has been observed, it is well established that if a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable and in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 423 a series of the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court were taken note and was held as under:“16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC Page 9 of 16 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96] . In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828] reads as under: (SCC pp. 158- 59, para 7)“7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.”Now, it is also a settled principle of law that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 it is held as hereunder;“8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time Gxed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).”The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Departm

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ent Vs. R. Kirubakaran reported in 1993 AIR 2647, 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 155 held that an application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned and any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned as a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior.Having respectfully considered the above noted decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to the settled principle of law in respect of correction of date of birth and taking cue therefrom, I am of the opinion and accordingly hold that the appellant has no legal right to maintain the declaration of his date of birth as prayed in his suit before the trial Court as he approached before the Court for correction of date of birth at the fag end of his service and even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded age of 24 years as on 15.02.1972 was erroneously recorded on the basis of Medical Examination, the appellant cannot, therefore, claim for correction of his date of birth in the service record as a matter of right. Consequently, impugned judgment and decree of the learned Appeal Court below is hereby affirmed.In the context of the above discussion the Appeal being S.A.T. No. 599 of 2013 is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.Department to send the LCR to the learned Court below forthwith.Certified website copies of the judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
O R