SEEMA GHOSH versus TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 28-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' , ... 
( 
.. 
SEEMA GHOSH 
A 
v. 
TAT A IRON AND STEEL COMPANY 
AUGUST 28, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
labour Laws-Superannuation-Dispute regarding determination of 
date of birth of workman-At the time of employment age of workman 
determined by Medical Officer of the Management-The date of birth accepted 
by workman-The same was questioned by him after about 25 years by C 
producing a school leaving certificate-The certificate was reported by District 
Education Officer as not genuine-Constitution of special Medical Board to 
rectijj; the age of workman-Age determined by the Board was accepted by 
workman-After superannuation on the determined date of birth, extension 
of one year availed by the workman-Industrial dispute raised by workman D 
thereafter-Award by labour Court in his favour-Writ Petition-Decided in 
favour of management-letters Patent appeal dismissed-On appeal, held, 
Award passed by the Labour Court was perverse and illegal-Workman is 
estopped from challenging the correctness of the opinion of the Medical 
Board after his retirement-Evidence-Estoppel. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction-Scope 
of-Re-assessment and re-valuation of the weight of evidence recorded by 
Labour Court-Permissibility-Held: When the judgment of Labour Court is 
perverse and against the facts and records, High Court is entitled to exercise 
its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with such finding. 
Apellant's husband (the workman) joined the services of the respondent-
company in November, 1947. As no documentary evidence in support of his 
date of birth was produced by the workman, it was recorded as 1.11.1923 based 
E 
F 
on assssment of his age by the Company's Medical Officer. The said date of 
birth was entered into Service Card prepared in June 1960, which was accepted 
by the workman putting his signature thereon. The workman, for the first G 
time in 1972 disputed his age by producing a school leaving certificate 
purported to have been isssued by the Headmaster of a School. The said 
certificate was referred to District Education Officer, who informed that the 
entries in the certificate were not genuine. Workman again produced another 
421 
H 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A certificate mentioning his date of birth as 11.8.1929. Enquiry regarding 
genuineness of the same was made, but no reply was received. The company, 
referred the matter to its Age Rectification Committee. The Committee 
referred the matter to Special Medical Board for assessment of his age as a 
special case. The Medical Board assessed his age and determined the date of 
B birth as 13.9.1926. The Workman accepted the said rectification and raised 
no objection thereto. After his superannuation he was also given extension of 
one year which was accepted by him. He had also signed a declaration on his 
Personal-cum-Family Verification and Service Card in 1987 accepting his 
date of birth as 13.9.1926. After his superannuation and after availing 
extension of one year, the workman raised an industrial dispute, wherein award 
C was passed by the labour court in his favour, holding that the management 
was not able to support its case by evidence and discarding the opinion and 
finding of Medical Board on the ground that the medical officer was not 
examined. Respondent-management's Writ Petition was allowed by High 
Court. After death of the workman, his wife preferred a Letters Patent Appea~ 
which was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present 
D appeal 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. 1. The High Court was fully justified in setting aside the Award 
ofthc Labour Court as the said Award was perverse and illegal inasmuch as 
E the judgment of this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. was ignored by the 
Labour Court. The workman did not challenge the opinion of the Medical 
Board constituted by the Management for determining his age. Therefore, 
the workman in the present case is estopped from challenging the correctness 
of the opinion of the Medical Board after his retirement. This apart, the school 
p leaving certificate which was produced by the workman was forwarded to the 
DEO, for verification who informed the Management that the certificate is 
not genuine. The workman was to superannuate in the year 1986 but on the 
basis of the assessment of ag~ made by the Apex Medical Board, he was aHowed 
to continue till 13.09.1987. At that st

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.