The legal case of Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. an Employee involves a dispute over the employee’s date of birth declaration, affecting the terms of employment. The respondent, the employee, initially declared his age as 24 without proof, leading to the recorded date of birth as 27.12.1948 in 1972. Subsequently, in 1982, the respondent submitted a declaration altering the date of birth to 12.03.1955 without providing any documentary evidence. The case explores the consequences of changing crucial information for personal gain over time.
Facts
- Appellant was employed as a Piece Rated Mazdoor at Barsua Iron Ore Mines under Rourkela Steel Plant, a unit of Hindustan Steel Limited (HSL), later merged into SAIL.
- The appeal arises from the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2021 of the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.9424 of 2019.
- The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition and upheld the Award dated 24.01.2018 passed by the CGIT in ID Case No.33 of 2003.
- Respondent no.3 was offered employment on a casual basis as a Piece Rated Mazdoor on 14.04.1972.
- Initially declared his age as 24 years without providing specific date or proof of birth.
- His date of birth was recorded as 27.12.1948 based on oral declaration.
- He was regularized as a Piece Rated Mazdoor in SAIL following the merger of HSL into SAIL.
- Submitted School Transfer Certificate dated 12.01.1972 indicating age as 17 years and 1 month at the time of employment.
- Date of birth determined by the Competent Authority as 27.12.1948 based on initial declaration.
- Dispute regarding date of birth referred to CGIT for adjudication on 09.10.2003.
- Superannuated on 31.12.2008 based on the initially recorded date of birth.
- CGIT awarded 50% back wages based on the date of birth in the STC i.e., 12.03.1955.
- Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the CGIT’s award on 24.01.2018.
- Respondent no.3 changed his date of birth to 12.03.1955 on 14.08.1982.
Also Read: Police Excesses Case: Somnath vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Arguments
- Petitioner declared his age as 24 without proof, resulting in the recorded date of birth as 27.12.1948 in 1972.
- In 1982, petitioner submitted a declaration stating his date of birth as 12.03.1955 without providing any documentary proof.
- Argued that changing date of birth after a decade to take advantage at two different points in time is unjustifiable.
Also Read: RKK vs. ACK: Dispute Over Family Properties
Analysis
- The respondent provided a false date of birth at the time of initial employment, which was below the legal minimum requirement of 18 years.
- The respondent only provided documentary proof of date of birth in response to a letter from the appellant requesting it.
- The respondent’s conduct cannot be excused by claiming an error on the part of the appellant in recording his date of birth.
- The Competent Authority deemed the date of birth declared by the respondent at the first instance as valid, as no proof was provided until 1998.
- The respondent would not have been eligible for employment in 1972 if he had disclosed his later claimed date of birth.
- The Competent Authority’s conclusion on the discrepancy in date of birth is just and reasonable.
- The delay in action by the respondent raises doubts about the genuineness of his claim regarding his date of birth.
- Principles of estoppel would be applicable in this case.
- In Union of India v C Rama Swamy, it was held that relief should not be granted even if the date of birth was incorrectly represented by the candidate with a view to gain an advantage.
- In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v T P Nataraja, earlier precedents were considered in the context of change of date of birth in service records.
- The principle of law laid down in T P Nataraja would apply to cases of changing date of birth in service records.
- Reference can be made to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v Shib Kumar Dushad in this regard.
- The sudden disclosure of a different date of birth by the respondent after receiving employment is suspicious.
- The respondent’s employment would have been illegal if his real date of birth was used for the appointment.
- The respondent cannot be allowed to rectify his date of birth for the purpose of his employment with the appellant.
- The respondent must continue with his service and benefits based on the initial date of birth declared.
Also Read: Territorial Jurisdiction in Power of Attorney Case
Decision
- The appellant’s deposited amount with accrued interest is to be released in its favor by the Registry.
- No costs are ordered to be paid.
- The direction to award 50% back wages to the respondent no.3 is set aside.
- Respondent no.3’s retirement based on the date of birth of 27.12.1948 is deemed correct.
- Pending applications are closed as they are no longer under consideration.
- The appeal is allowed, and the Award of the CGIT dated 24.01.2018 and the impugned judgment are set aside.
Case Title: THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S BARSUA IRON ORE MINES Vs. THE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION (2024 INSC 264)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004686-004686 / 2024
