Mere Admission Of Different Date Of Birth Not Better Proof Than School Leaving Certificate: Orissa High Court

While providing relief to a workman against his management, a Division Bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Mishra said,

“This admission cannot stand in face of the documentary evidence, borne out by the school leaving certificate. School leaving certificate is one of the proofs of date of birth. Furthermore, admissions can be explained. Section 31 in Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says admissions are not conclusive proof but may operate as estoppel under the provisions thereafter contained.”

Factual Background

The petitioner-management had formed a sub-committee for looking into the age of the labourers/workmen employed under it. When the opposite party no. 2 (a workman) conveyed the committee that his date of birth is 28^th August, 1959, it found several reasons to doubt the said claim.

The committee particularly took into account the fact that in 1994 wife of the workman was said to be around 30 years, when his first son was already 16 years old. Under these circumstances, the workman was asked to appear before the committee. He admitted to have been born two years prior to his claimed date of birth, i.e. 28^th August, 1956.

Hence, the application form for registration of workers, carrying particulars of opposite party workman, were altered in respect of his date of birth in the year 1994. In acknowledgment of the alterations, the workman put his signature.

However, he pointed out the discrepancy in his date of birth in 2007, seven years before he was to achieve age of superannuation after duly obtaining his school leaving certificate, in which it was clearly mentioned that he was born on 28^th August, 1958.

The workman approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for necessary corrections after failing get relief from the management. The management though filed written statement but did not contest the case thereafter. Therefore, the Tribunal passed an order in favour of the workman, which was impugned before the High Court in this writ petition.

Court’s Observations

The Court expressed its inability to accept the fact that the workman was born on 28^th August, 1956 as no convincing proof was produced to that effect. It noted that the workman had initially claimed his date of birth as 28^th August, 1958. Subsequently, he put his signature on the corrections made by the management in initial record of his date of birth.

The Court was of the view that the corrections accompanied by signature and date put by the workman at best amounts to an admission on his part that he was born on 28th August, 1956. But it categorically held that such admission cannot stand in face of the school leaving certificate, which is documentary evidence and a legally recognised proof of date of birth.

It also clarified that as per Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, admissions are not conclusive proof but may operate as estoppel as provided under Sections 115 to 117 of the Act. But in the instant case, there can be no estoppel against the workman as he did not have intention to cause the management to believe that he was born on 28th August, 1956. Rather, the management insisted him to give acknowledgement to that belief.

Consequently, the Court did not find any merit in the writ petition and dismissed it upholding the order of the Tribunal.

Case Title: Management Committee, CFH Scheme, Paradip Port v. Paradip Port Workers Union & Anr.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 14256 of 2021

Judgment Dated: 21^st February 2023

Coram: A. Sinha & S.K. Mishra, JJ.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Prakash Das & Mr. P. Panda, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Sujata Jena, Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 27