In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors. The court’s ruling, delivered by Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, addressed crucial surrounding an employee’s date of birth and its implications on employment and entitlements.
The case stemmed from a dispute between M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines (the appellant) and a former employee, referred to as respondent no.3. The respondent, employed as a Piece Rated Mazdoor, had initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948, leading to his employment. However, later in his service, he claimed his actual date of birth to be 12.03.1955 without providing documentary evidence.
The appellant contested the respondent’s claim, arguing that his initial declaration had been the basis for his employment, and any attempt to change it post-facto should not be entertained. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that allowing such a change would amount to the respondent benefiting twice, both through securing employment and subsequently claiming back wages based on a different date of birth.
In a detailed analysis, Justices, delivering the judgment, remarked, “The respondent’s attempt to change his date of birth after almost a decade cannot be deemed genuine. The initial declaration formed the basis of his employment, and any subsequent alteration would lead to undue advantage.”
The court also emphasized the principle of estoppel, stating, “The respondent cannot claim a different date of birth after benefiting from the initial declaration. Consistency and reliability in such matters are paramount.”
Referring to established legal precedents, the court highlighted that applications for changing the date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly when made towards the end of one’s service or close to retirement.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court’s award and the judgment of the High Court. The respondent was held to have been rightly retired based on the initial date of birth declared, thereby affirming the employer’s decision.
Case Name: THE GENERAL MANAGER Vs. THE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4686 OF 2024 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5947
Bench: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Order dated: 02.04.2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
