Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Labour & Industrial LawSupreme Court of India

The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 264Decided 2 Apr 2024
Not available
Justice Hima Kohli · Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

A worker at Barsua Iron Ore Mines initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948 when seeking casual employment in 1972 (making him old enough to be legally employed), but a decade later, in 1982, he declared a different date of birth (12.03.1955) without documentary proof: a date that would have made him under the minimum legal working age of 18 at the time he was first employed. He retired in 2008 based on the original date of birth, and years later a labour tribunal ordered the employer to treat his later-claimed date of birth as correct and awarded him 50% back wages for the additional years he claimed he should have worked; the High Court upheld this.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the worker's much-delayed claim (supported only by documentary proof submitted after being specifically asked for it in 1998) could not be accepted, especially since accepting the later date of birth would mean he was underage and could not have been legally employed in the first place. Applying the principle of estoppel and citing precedent that employees cannot switch their declared date of birth to their advantage late in service, the Court set aside the tribunal's award and the High Court's judgment, holding the worker was correctly retired based on his originally declared date of birth, and set aside the back-wages direction.

Lesson Learnt

An employee cannot be permitted to change his declared date of birth decades later, especially near or after retirement, if the change would be self-serving and if his original declaration was what made his employment lawful in the first place. Courts apply estoppel against such delayed, one-sided corrections.

The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware