A) Abstract / Headnote

This case revolves around a dispute concerning the retirement of an employee based on his recorded date of birth. The initial records submitted by the employee reflected his date of birth as 27.12.1948, which qualified him for employment. Years later, he claimed a revised date of birth as 12.03.1955, backed by a school transfer certificate. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) initially ruled in the employee’s favor, awarding him back wages. The Supreme Court, however, set aside this decision, emphasizing the principle of estoppel, the employee’s initial declarations, and the lack of timely documentary proof. The Court concluded that the retirement based on the original records was justified, disallowing the revised date of birth and overturning the CGIT award.

Keywords: Service Law, Superannuation, Principle of Estoppel, Date of Birth, Back Wages.

B) Case Details

i) Judgement Cause Title
The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date
April 2, 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

vii) Citation
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 63; 2024 INSC 264

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(a) (Definition of Appropriate Government).
• Principle of Estoppel under common law principles.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Service Law, Labour Law, Evidence Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgement

The dispute stemmed from conflicting dates of birth provided by the employee during his service. Initially recorded as 27.12.1948, this date ensured the employee’s legal eligibility at the time of employment. However, in 1982, the employee submitted a new date, 12.03.1955, based on a school transfer certificate. The employer, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), later challenged this revised date, asserting the employee’s deliberate misrepresentation. After the CGIT sided with the employee and awarded back wages for the discrepancy period, the High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision. The employer escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Initial Employment: The employee joined as a Piece Rated Mazdoor in 1972 with a declared date of birth of 27.12.1948.
2. Change of Records: In 1982, the employee revised his date of birth to 12.03.1955, submitting a school transfer certificate.
3. Employer’s Objection: The employer maintained the original date as accurate, noting the employee’s underage status if the revised date were correct.
4. Retirement and Tribunal Award: The employee retired in 2008 based on the initial date. The CGIT awarded him back wages for the period between 2008 and 2015.
5. Legal Disputes: The High Court upheld the CGIT decision, prompting the employer to appeal to the Supreme Court.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the original date of birth (27.12.1948) recorded during employment could be altered retrospectively.
2. Whether the employee’s subsequent claim based on the school transfer certificate was valid.
3. The applicability of principle of estoppel in barring the employee from retracting his initial declaration.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. Initial Declaration as Binding: The appellant argued that the employee was bound by his initial declaration of 27.12.1948.
2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The appellant emphasized the deliberate misrepresentation of age to secure employment.
3. Principle of Estoppel: The employee’s long acceptance of the original date precluded any retrospective amendment.
4. Eligibility Concern: Had the revised date (12.03.1955) been declared initially, the employee would have been underage at the time of appointment.
5. Delay in Challenge: The appellant highlighted the decades-long gap before the employee sought correction, undermining his credibility.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Error in Recording: The respondent argued that the error in recording his birth date was attributable to the employer, not him.
2. Documentary Evidence: The school transfer certificate substantiated the revised date of birth.
3. Right to Rectification: The respondent contended that rectification of erroneous records was a legitimate right, irrespective of time lapse.
4. Employer’s Fault: The respondent blamed the employer for discrepancies in record maintenance.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 2(a), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Defines the authority of the “appropriate Government.”
2. Principle of Estoppel: Precludes a party from asserting contrary facts to previous admissions or declarations.

I) Judgement

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the initial declaration of 27.12.1948 was deliberate, ensuring legal employment eligibility. The subsequent claim of 12.03.1955 lacked timely documentary support and was inconsistent with the principles of estoppel. The retirement was, therefore, valid.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court refrained from examining potential fraud in depth but noted the respondent’s questionable conduct.

c. Guidelines

1. Timely Challenge of Records: Employees must address record discrepancies promptly.
2. Binding Nature of Initial Declarations: Employers can rely on initial submissions barring exceptional circumstances.
3. Documentary Proof Requirement: Claims of record errors must be supported by contemporaneous evidence.

J) Conclusion and Comments

The Court reaffirmed the importance of accurate, timely documentation in service law. The judgment reinforces employer protections against retrospective claims that lack substantiation. The decision underscores the principles of estoppel and promotes administrative integrity.

K) References

1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad, (2000) 8 SCC 696.
2. Union of India v. C Rama Swamy, (1997) 4 SCC 647.
3. Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T P Nataraja, (2021) 12 SCC 27.
4. Home Department v. R Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155.
5. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664.
6. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781.
7. Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411.