The Supreme Court recently delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors. The ruling, articulated by Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, delved into crucial matters surrounding an employee's declared date of birth and its ramifications on employment and associated entitlements.

The case stemmed from a dispute between M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines (the appellant) and a former employee, identified as respondent no.3. Initially employed as a Piece Rated Mazdoor, the respondent had furnished his date of birth as 27.12.1948, which served as the basis for his employment. However, at a later juncture during his tenure, he asserted his actual date of birth to be 12.03.1955, without substantiating this claim with documentary evidence.

The appellant contested this alteration, contending that the initial declaration was pivotal in the respondent's recruitment process. They argued that permitting such retroactive changes would confer undue advantage upon the respondent, enabling him to benefit twice – first by securing employment and then by potentially claiming backdated wages based on the revised date of birth.

In a meticulous analysis, the Justices remarked that the respondent's attempt to modify his date of birth nearly a decade into his employment lacked credibility. They emphasized that the initial declaration had formed the foundation of his recruitment, and any subsequent alteration would be tantamount to exploitation of the system. Additionally, the court underscored the principle of estoppel, asserting that consistency and reliability in such matters were paramount.

Drawing upon established legal precedents, the court highlighted that requests for altering one's date of birth cannot be treated as an automatic entitlement, particularly when made towards the culmination of one's service or in close proximity to retirement. 

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal, overturning the rulings of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the High Court. The respondent was deemed to have been appropriately retired based on the initially declared date of birth, thereby affirming the employer's decision.

Case: THE GENERAL MANAGER Vs. THE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4686 OF 2024 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5947 OF 2021).