Dhanbad vs Ibrahim Mian, s/o Muslim Mian, by faith Islam, by occupation Service

basis and purely on assumption of the imaginary age of the plaintiff. The plaintiff passed Winding Engine Man’s II class certificate from the Board of Mining Examination on 16.07.1978 and a certificate of passing of the said examination was issued on 10.08.1978 in which the date of birth has been recorded as 08.01.1947. The plaintiff also passed Winding Engine Man’s I class certificate on 01.07.1979 and a certificate dated 28.07.1979 has been given by the Board of Mining Examination, where the plaintiff’s date of birth has been mentioned as

08.01.1947. The plaintiff was unaware of the change brought in the duplicate form-B register by P.B. Area. After taking over the colliery by BCCL-appellant-company, the process of transfer of employees by one colliery to another colliery started taking place which caused discrepancies in the service record due to misplacement and loss of 2 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 the service record and documents during taking over and transit period. The Government of India in order to remove such anomalies existing in different collieries and of the different subsidiaries of Coal India Limited and in order to bring uniformity in the policy of the correction of entries in the service record, a joint bipartite committee by the Coal Industries was constituted and it was decided to provide one time opportunity for correction of the entries in the service record. Accordingly, excerpt of the service records were served upon all the employees of the appellant company requesting all the employees concerned to record their objection if any and to suggest necessary corrections. The plaintiff in 1987 having received the extract of the service record for correction; pointed out that his date of birth as per the certificate is 08.01.1947. The plaintiff requested to make necessary correction. The defendant in-spite of such age proofs did not make necessary correction and even ignored the statutory certificates containing his date of birth. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that according to JBCCI implementation instruction no.76, in case of non-matriculation employees, the certificates like Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine Man’s certificate should be treated as authentic for the purpose of determining the date of birth. The plaintiff asserted that the actual date of birth is 08.01.1947 hence, he will complete the age of 60 years on 08.01.2007 and till then, he is entitled to continue in service but on assumption of wrong and imaginary year of birth i.e. 1943, the plaintiff was illegally and arbitrarily superannuated w.e.f. 30.06.2003. The plaintiff filed W.P. (S) 3 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 No.4883 of 2002 praying for adjudication of the dispute relating to the date of birth. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

23.07.2003 advised the plaintiff to get his date of birth adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer:- (a) For declaration that the defendants are bound to follow the implementation instruction no.76 of JBCCI and to treat the Winding Engine Man’s certificate- the statutory certificate granted by the Board of Mining Examination as authentic for the purpose of determining the date of birth of the plaintiff and to accept the date of birth 08.01.1947 as mentioned therein. (b) For a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to put back the plaintiff in his service by revoking the order of his superannuation on and from 30.06.2003 with due back wages and all service benefits. (c) Cost of the Suit. (d) For any other relief or reliefs. 5 The defendants in their joint written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and pleaded that the plaintiff was one of the employees appointed by the erstwhile owners before the coking coal mines and coke oven plants were nationalized by the Central Government by operation of Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 (Act 64 of 1971) and the appointed day was 17th October, 1971. These defendants further pleaded that the erstwhile owners did not hand over the relevant papers of the concerned mines. These defendants further pleaded that date of birth of the plaintiff stood recorded as 1943 in the form B register as the plaintiff did not produce the school leaving certificate at the relevant time. These defendants further pleaded that under the certified standing orders, where exact date of birth is not mentioned, first day of July of the said year is to be reckoned as the date of superannuation. Therefore, in the case of the plaintiff the date of 4 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 superannuation worked out to be on 1st July, 2003. These defendants admitted that the plaintiff after joining in service passed the Winding Engine Man’s II class certificate from the Board of Mining Examination and and certificate of the said examination was issued on 10.08.1978 and similarly, on his passing Winding Engine Man’s I class certificate and certificate dated 28.07.1979 was issued by the Board of Mining Examination. These defendants admits that the plaintiff managed recording of his date of birth in above two certificates as 08.01.1947. These defendants next pleaded that the plaintiff did not produce any basis for recording of his date of birth in the aforesaid two certificates at any point of time. These defendants also pleaded that the form B register prepared by P.B. Area on the basis of the certificate and particulars furnished by the Bhurungia project from where the plaintiff was transferred to P.B. Area. These defendants also pleaded that the service excerpts were issued to the plaintiff wherein in column of the date of birth 1943 was written. The said service excerpts was written by the plaintiff without any objection at the foot thereof. No request for correction of the date of birth was made by the plaintiff while returning the service excerpts. These defendants pleaded that Winding Engine Man’s II class certificate and Winding Engine Man’s I class certificate are not the statutory documents for the purpose of ascertaining the date of birth under implementation instruction no.76. These defendants next pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed on 17.10.1971 whereas the two certificates have been obtained by him were subsequent to his 5 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 appointment. Hence, the age recorded therein are not acceptable. These defendants further pleaded that the certificates issued by the Board of Examination is not conclusive and final and the same cannot override the binding force of the service books which in relation to a mine under the Mines Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder is form B register. 6 On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following ten issues:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? (iv) Whether the form B register which was framed where the plaintiff for the first time joined at Bohragarh colliery of B.C.C.L. is available with the BCCL and the correct date of birth of the plaintiff has been mentioned therein? (v) Whether as per the certificate issued by the Board of Mining Examination as the date of birth of the plaintiff is 08.01.1947 and as per the instruction no.76 of JBCCI, the said date of birth is correct? (vi) Whether in the year 1987, the plaintiff was provided with service record at that time, the plaintiff disputed his date of birth mentioned and made prayer for correction of the same? (vii) Whether the plaintiff has been superannuated before 6 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 completing 60 years of age on 30.06.2003 or he has been superannuated upon completion of 60 years of age? (viii) Whether any dispute regarding the date of birth of the plaintiff was referred to the labour court or industrial Tribunal for adjudication? (ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for? (x) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief or reliefs? 7 The learned trial court took up issue nos. (iv), (v) & (vi) and after observing that the “Winding Engine certificate” refer to in implementation instruction no.76 is in respect of such certificates produced at the time of joining of the employee and did not consider Ext. 1 and 1/a -that is the two of the certificates issued by the Board of Mining Examination as the same were obtained subsequent to the joining of the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant company and came to the conclusion that in 1987, the service record of the plaintiff was given to him but the plaintiff could not establish whether he submitted any application for its correction and decided the said three issues in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. The learned trial court next took up issue no. (vii) and considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that in the service record of the plaintiff, the date of birth has been mentioned as 1943 hence, accordingly, the plaintiff has been sent a notice for superannuation upon his completing 60 years. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue no.(viii) and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence in the record to suggest that any dispute 7 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 regarding the date of birth of the plaintiff was referred to the Labour court or Industrial Tribunal. The learned trial court thereafter took up issue no. (iii) and came to the conclusion that there is no material in the record to establish that the suit was barred for non-joinder or mis- joinder of the parties. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue no. (i) and (ii) together and held that the suit is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for the suit. The learned trial court took up issue no.(ix) and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no. (x) and held that the plaintiff is also not entitled to any relief and dismissed the suit on contest but without costs. 8 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.178 of 2006 in the court of District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 9 The learned first appellate court formulated the following two point for determination for consideration:- (i) Whether the date of birth of the plaintiff is 08.01.47 or not? (ii) Whether the plaintiff should be put back in his service by revoking the order of his superannuation on and from

30.06.2003 or not? 10 The learned first appellate court first took up the point for determination no. (i) and considered the fact that as per JBCCI implementation no.76 Clause (ia) of which says that in case of 8 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 existing employees matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by recognized University or Board or Middle pass certificate issued by Board of Education and/or department of Public Instruction and admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated correct whereas they were issued by University/Board/Institution prior to the date of employment and Clause (ib) says that mining sidarship winding engine or similar other statutory certificate where the manager certified the date of birth will be treated as authentic and where both the documents mentioned above are available the date of birth recorded in (ia) will be treated authentic. The learned first appellate court also considered the evidence of D.W. 1 who was the personnel officer of the appellant company and in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of his cross-examination, he has stated that in the year 1987 an opportunity was given to all the workers to correct their date of birth in the service record, if any wrong entry has been done and in paragraph no.13, the said D.W.1 admits that the plaintiff also submitted for correction of the date of birth as in column no.6, the date of birth has been mentioned as 1943 but his date of birth has been mentioned as 08.01.1947 as per the winding engine man’s certificate and school register and in view of the admission of the D.W.1, the learned first appellate court did not believe the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff failed to prove it to the notice of the management about the wrong entry of his age. The learned first appellate court also held that as admitted by D.W.1, since the plaintiff brought to the notice of the respondent 9 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 company in the year 1987 that at least 16 years prior the date of superannuation as per the respondent and 20 years as per the claim of the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff raised dispute about his wrong entry of it at the fag end of his service. The learned first appellate court also found fault with the learned trial court for overlooking the Ext. 2 and the testimony of D.W.1 in which he admitted that the plaintiff passed Board of Mining Examination of winding engine man’s class I and II in the year 1978 and 1979 respectively and the D.W.1 also admitted that according to the winding engine man’s certificate, the age of superannuation of the appellant will be 08.01.2007. The learned first appellate court also considered the testimony of D.W.1 in paragraph no.4 of his deposition wherein, he has categorically admitted that the plaintiff was appointed for the first time at Boragarh colliery and at that time what was the date of birth recorded in form B register, cannot be said by D.W.1 and also the testimony of D.W.1 to the effect that he cannot say whether in the form B of Boragarh colliery, the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 08.01.1947 or not. The learned first appellate court then considered that the certificate issued as the winding engine man’s under Mines Act are there on the record and these documents were also produced before the respondent company because it has been admitted by the respondent’s witness that without producing these certificates issued by the winding engine man’s, employees are not permitted to operate the machine. The first appellate court further observed that the learned trial court 10 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 misdirected itself by not giving any weightage to the certificate marked Ext. 1 and 1/a when the form B register of the Boragarh colliery has not been produced before the court. The learned first appellate court also considered the evidence of the plaintiff in paragraph no.8 to the effect that when the duplicate form B register was prepared, no information was given to him and the column of date of birth is left blank and company according to its whim subsequently put the year as 1943. The learned first appellate court also drew adverse inference against the defendants for failing to produce original form B when the appellant was appointed having been not produced by the defendant-company and held that winding engine man’s Class I and II certificate has got statutory force as per the implementation instruction no.76 of JBCCI and went on to hold that the date of birth of the appellant is 08.01.1947 and allowed the appeal but did not allow the prayer of the respondent to put back the plaintiff into service on the ground that the same relates to industrial dispute which can only be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal nor granted any other relief. 11 At the time of Admission of this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed vide order dated 17.04.2010 :- “Whether the learned lower appellate court has correctly met with the reasonings and findings of the trial court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court?” 12 Vide order dated 17.10.2022, the following two additional substantial questions of law were framed:- 11 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 (i) Whether the learned first appellate court has committed gross error of law in declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff by ignoring the statutory Form –B register (Ext. B) which is a statutory record maintained under the Mines Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder? (ii) Whether an entry relating to date of birth recorded in Form B register (Ext. B) which is final, conclusive and binding between the parties can be corrected on the basis of School Leaving Certificate (Ext.3) Winding Engine Man’s II Class Certificate (Ext.1) and Winding Engine Man’s I Class Certificate (Ext.1/A) in the light of the Judgment reiterated in the case of Bahadur Mahto Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, reported in 2006 (2) JLJR 468?” 13 Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bahadur Mahto Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others (supra) and submitted that it has been observed therein that normally details mentioned in form B register are final and conclusive and are binding on the parties and the same cannot be corrected on the basis of an entry of the date of birth made in the identity card. 14 Mr. Mehta next relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pyare Singh vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. reported in [2014 (3) JCR 679 (Jhr)] paragraph nos.6, 7 and 10 which reads as under:- “6. The learned counsel of the respondent – company has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (3) JBCJ 28 SC in the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors. Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, wherein, it has been held that statutory documents like Form – B register is binding and School Leaving Certificate cannot prevail over records and statutory documents of the company; that the appellant should have produced the matriculation certificate at the 12 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 time of appointment since he has stated that he had passed matriculation examination in the year 1966 as per Annexure – 2, which was prior to joining of his service. It has also been submitted that the appellant – petitioner has superannuated and the impugned order does not require any interference. 7. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident in the decision relied on by the learned counsel, for the appellant, in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd & Ors. Vs. Bajrangi Rabidasreportedin2013(4)JLJRSC467, wherein it has been held that the person passing the matriculation examination should produce it at the first instance. It is apparent from the record of this case that the appellant – petitioner did not produce the matriculation certificate, which he claims was in his possession which he did not. It is evident from Form – B that his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1946 and the appellant – petitioner had signed in flawless English which shows that he is a literate person and signed on Form – B having full knowledge about the contents of documents. The said decision in fact supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent whereby the Supreme Court held that the entry in the records and statutory documents of the company shall be given primacy. 10. It is held that Form – B, which was prepared at the time of joining of the appellant, it is a statutory document and record of service and has been duly signed and authenticated by the appellant. Thus there is no plausible explanation as to why he had not produced the matriculation certificate at the time of appointment, which was in his possession as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is evident that he raised his grievance at the fag end of his service.” 15 It is then submitted by Mr. Mehta that as form B register is the conclusive prove of the date of birth hence, the learned first appellate court has committed gross error of law in deciding the date of birth of the plaintiff by ignoring the statutory form B register which is the statutory record maintained under the Mines Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder. It is further submitted by Mr. Mehta that the learned first appellate court has committed a grave error of law by relying upon the Ext. 1 and 1/a - even though the 13 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 same were admittedly not issued prior to the date of employment of the plaintiff. Mr. Mehta further submits that as the Ext. 3 which is the school leaving certificate did not find place in the implementation instruction no.76 of JBCCI hence, on the basis of the same also, the entry of the date of birth in the form B register cannot be corrected. Mr. Mehta next submits that in fact, the form B register (Ext. B) is not a duplicate register. It is the case of the defendants that the erstwhile private mine owners under whom the plaintiff was said to be working prior to the nationalization of the coal mines; did not hand over the documents of their employees to the appellant company. It is then submitted that there is no material in the record to suggest that the form B register which was prepared at the time of joining of the plaintiff was in possession of the plaintiff. It is next submitted by Mr. Mehta that during the trial, the plaintiff never took any steps for production of the said form B register at the time of joining Bohragarh colliery by way of discovery, interrogatories or any other provision of law. It is then submitted that the learned first appellate court thus has committed an error of law by drawing adverse interference against the plaintiff. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree being not sustainable in law be set aside. 16 Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, so far as the first additional substantial question of law as to whether the learned first appellate court has committed gross error of law in declaring the date of birth 14 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 of the plaintiff by ignoring the statutory Form –B register (Ext. B) which is a statutory record maintained under the Mines Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder is concerned, as has been observed by a Division Bench and a coordinate Bench of this Court that certainly, the form B register which was prepared at the time of joining of the appellant is a statutory document and record of service. 17 So far as the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bahadur Mahto Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others (supra) is concerned, it appears that the coordinate Bench has no occasion to consider implementation instruction no.76 of JBCCI. It is the admitted case of both the parties that as per the implementation instruction no.76 in the year 1987, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to correct the date of birth if the same is wrong and this fact has been admitted by the D.W.1 in his deposition before the court. The procedure laid down by Implementation Instruction No.76 to determine date of birth of an existing employee, has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw reported in (2014) 12 SCC 570 in para-12 of which reads as under :- “12. The appellant in the present case should have followed the procedure as laid down by Implementation Instruction 76 to determine the date of birth of an existing employee. The provisions of which read as follows: “(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.—(i)(a) In the case of the existing employees matriculation certificate of (sic or) higher secondary certificate issued by the recognised universities of Board or middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were 15 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 issued by the said universities/Boards/institutions prior to the date of employment. (i)(b) Similarly, Mining Sardarship, winding engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. (ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management. The management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board. (C) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the Company, namely, Form B register, CMP records and identity cards (untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will Determination Committee/Medical Board management for the determination of age. (D) Age Determination Age determination Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider their evidence available with the colliery management; and/or (E) The Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to manage (sic assess) the age in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately.” Age constituted referred 18 It is crystal clear that as per the said arrangement for correction of the date of birth under clause (ia) which is not applicable to the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not produced higher secondary certificate issued by recognized universities of Board or middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit card issued by the Universities/Board/ Institution should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/ Institutions prior 16 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 to the date of employment and clause (ib) of which starts with the word ‘Similarly’ which obviously means that the date of birth mentioned in the winding engine man’s certificate must be treated as correct provided that they were issued by the concerned board prior to the date of employment of the employee. 19 Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly, the plaintiff joined the service of the appellant company on 17.10.1971 as haulage khalasi as mentioned in the plaint itself. The Ext. 1 was issued on 10.08.1978 and the Ext. 1/a was issued on 28.07.1979 as mentioned in paragraph no.3 and 4 of the plaint as well as Ext. 1 and 1/a. Thus, the Ext. 1 and 1/a were not issued prior to the date of employment of the plaintiff. Hence, the learned trial court rightly did not consider the Ext. 1 and 1/a in respect of entry of date of birth of the plaintiff made therein, the same being of not prior to the employment of the plaintiff. 20 It is pertinent to mention here that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bharwan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in [2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr)] has held in paragraph no.27 and 29:- “27. In these decisions, though it is observed that the employee will not normally be permitted to apply for change of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career, the Supreme Court clearly held that if the Court is fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and when a clear case, relating to the date of birth, is made out on the basis of clinching materials, then necessary direction to make a declaration of the 17 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 said date of birth can be given. 29. In view of the above discussion, our answer to the question raised in this case is as follows:- “The date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement – III.” 21 In view of this categorical enunciation of law by the full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad & Others (supra), in case both the parties i.e. the employer and employee are governed by implementation instruction no.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III of JBCCI then, the date of entry in form B register can be corrected on the basis of the documents mentioned in (ia) of implementation instruction no.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III of JBCCI, i.e. higher secondary certificate issued by recognized universities of Board or middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of the employment of the employee concerned and the document is mentioned (ia) of implementation instruction no.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement- III of JBCCI, is not available then the entry of date of birth made in mining sardarship, winding engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Thus, the first additional substantial question of 18 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 law is answered in the affirmative by holding that the first appellate court has committed gross error of law in declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff by ignoring the statutory form B register (Ext. B) which is the statutory record maintained under the Mines Act, 1952 as is framed thereunder, on the basis of Ext. 1 and 1/a, even though they were undisputedly not prior to the date of employment of the plaintiff, by the appellant company. The learned first appellate court also erred by referring to Ext. B as a duplicate form B register. In fact, the Ext. B was a register which was prepared upon the transfer of the plaintiff to P.B. Area of the colliery and the same is also an original document which bears the original signature of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no explanation as to why he signed in a document which was either blank or in which a wrong date or year of his birth was mentioned. 22 So far as the second additional substantial question of law as to whether an entry relating to date of birth recorded in Form B register (Ext. B) which is final, conclusive and binding between the parties can be corrected on the basis of School Leaving Certificate (Ext.3) Winding Engine Man’s II Class Certificate (Ext.1) and Winding Engine Man’s I Class Certificate (Ext.1/a) in the light of the Judgment reiterated in the case of Bahadur Mahto Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, reported in 2006 (2) JLJR 468 is concerned, as already been held by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad & 19 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 Others (supra), that in case where both the parties i.e. the employer and employee are governed by implementation instruction no.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III of JBCCI, the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board or in the absence of the same, the mining sardarship winding engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as conclusive proof of age provided such certificates were issued by the said Universities/Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of employment of the employee concern. Hence, in case, where the employer and employee are governed by the implementation instruction no. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III, the entry relating to the date of birth recorded in form B register cannot be treated as final, conclusive and biding between the parties and can be corrected on the basis of winding engine man’s class II certificate, winding engine man’s class I certificate provided these certificates were issued prior to the date of employment of the employee concerned but cannot be corrected on the basis of the school leaving certificate, as the school leaving certificate do not find place either (ia) or (ib) of the said clause B of the said implementation instruction no.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III. In this case, since the Ext. 1 and 1/a were admittedly issued after the employment of the plaintiff on 17.10.1971 certainly, the learned first appellate court erred by making the same basis for correction of the date of birth mentioned in form B register marked Ext. B. The second additional substantial question of law is answered 20 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 in the negative accordingly. 23 So far as the substantial question of law as to whether the learned lower appellate court has correctly met with the reasoning and findings of the trial court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the second appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of learned first appellate court on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arumugham v. Sundarambal, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 350, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under in paragraph 14:- “14. From the aforesaid judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Ramachandra Ayyar it is clear that this Court held that the second appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to close grips with the reasoning of the trial court. It is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on the other side. It is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with such findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the appellate trial court. … …”(Emphasis Supplied) 24 . Now coming to the facts of the case the learned first appellate court committed grave error of law in observing that since the D.W.1 has admitted that the plaintiff passed the board of mining examination of winding engine man’s class I and II in the year 1978- 79 and he has also admitted that without showing the certificate no employee is permitted to operate the winding engine therefore, the certificates were produced before the respondent company by no stretch of imagination can go to show that the said certificates were 21 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 produced before the employment of the plaintiff with the appellant- defendant-company. More so because there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the 1st appointment of the plaintiff was as operator of winding engine rather the pleading and evidence in the record to suggest that the plaintiff was first employed as haulage khalasi. 25 In view of the admitted facts that the employment of the plaintiff initially was in the post of haulage khalasi and not as the winding engine man, the reasoning of the first appellate court that the plaintiff must have submitted exhibit- 1 and 1/a is not a sound one. 26 So in the considered opinion of this Court as already discussed above, the learned first appellate court could not meet with the reasoning of the learned trial court i.e. Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/a having been issued after the employment of the plaintiff with the appellant- defendant company, so the same is not covered by clause B (ia) or (ib) of the Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III. The substantial question of law is thus answered in the affirmative. 27 In view of the discussions made above, as the learned first appellate court has wrongly relied upon Ext. 1 and 1/a and made the same the basis for arriving at a different date of birth of the plaintiff other than the one mentioned in the form B register - marked exhibit B; though Ext. 1 and 1/a were not issued prior to the employment of the plaintiff with the defendant company. Hence, the impugned 22 Second Appeal No. 280 of 2007 judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Munsif-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.147 of 2003 is restored. 28 In the result, this appeal is allowed ex-parte but under the circumstances without any costs. 29 Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st December, 2022 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- 23