### Statutory Records Prevail Over Medical Estimation for Determination of Workman’s Date of Birth

The respondent was engaged by the petitioner company in 1978.

Lacking documentary proof of birth, the petitioner recorded his date of birth (DOB) as 04.06.1956 based on a medical estimation conducted in 1983.

However, in 1997, the respondent’s EPF Form-2 (nomination and declaration), forwarded by the petitioner, recorded his DOB as 20.11.1963.

This 1963 date also appeared in his Parivar Register and LIC policy.

On 01.04.2016, the petitioner issued a retirement notice effective 03.06.2016 based on the 1956 entry.

The respondent objected, seeking correction per the EPF records, but was retired.

The Deputy Labour Commissioner (DLC) ruled in favor of the respondent on 10.05.2018, ordering DOB correction and consequential benefits.

The petitioner challenged this order via the present writ petition.

Whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner erred in prioritizing statutory EPF records over the employer's medically-assessed service records?

Whether the respondent's claim for DOB correction was barred by Clause LL-3(iv) of the Certified Standing Orders due to delay and acquiescence?

The Court applied Clause LL-6 of the Certified Standing Orders regarding dispute resolution for workmen.

It distinguished between a belated attempt to alter an admitted DOB at the end of service versus a request to correct an erroneous entry based on reliable documentary evidence.

The Court implicitly applied the principle that a mere medical estimation lacks conclusive evidentiary value compared to statutory records under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme.

Furthermore, the court applied the standard of judicial review under Article 226, holding that findings of fact by a competent authority based on evidence should not be disturbed unless perverse.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the 1983 medical assessment was binding, noting it was a "mere medical estimation" rather than a scientific ossification test and lacked legal sanctity.

Conversely, the EPF records were deemed reliable as they are statutory records maintained in the "ordinary course of statutory compliance" and were corroborated by independent documents like the Parivar Register.

The Court dismissed the petitioner's reliance on Clause LL-3(iv) of the Standing Orders (imposing a one-year limit for DOB modification), reasoning that the respondent was not seeking a strategic change but the correction of an entry that was "unsupported by any authentic proof from its inception".

Since the respondent was illiterate and only discovered the discrepancy upon the retirement notice in 2016, the Court found no acquiescence on his part.

It held that the respondent’s correct DOB is 20.11.1963 and his retirement on 03.06.2016 was premature and illegal.

The petitioner was directed to correct the service records, grant all consequential benefits, and comply with the order within three months.