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