ORDER Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J.
1. In the instant writ petition, during the pendency of the petition before this court, the workman, namely, Ram Sewak Dubey, respondent No. 3 died on November 24, 1993. Deceased Ram Sewak Dubey had retired as Daftari from Punjab National Bank. An application for substitution was moved by legal heirs and representatives of the deceased workman, which was allowed by Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Nag, J. on the ground that the workman was duly represented by Sri Sanjay Misra, who had accepted notice on behalf of heirs and legal representatives of deceased Ram Sewak Dubey.
2. Sri K.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Misra, learned counsel for the heirs and legal representatives of deceased workman are present.
3. The petitioner challenges the award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur.
4. The Central Government had referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal;
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur, in retiring Sri. Ram Sewak Dubcy, Daftari, Industrial Area Branch. Gorakhpur, w.e.f. May 31, 1995, is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"
5. The case of the deceased workman was that his actual date of birth was October 3, 1927. However, as per Bank's record, his date of birth was May 12, 1925. He entered into service, as a Peon, on November 23, 1946 and in accordance with the date of birth in the official record, being May 12, 1925, he was retired from service w.e.f. May 31, 1986.
6. The Tribunal considered the defence set up by the Management that as per workman's declaration on identity form executed by him on June 16, 1947, his date of birth is May 12, 1925. It was on the basis of the said declaration that his date of birth was recorded in his service book as May 12, 1925. Photostat copy of the aforesaid identity form bearing the signatures of workman was enclosed before the Tribunal as Annexure 'D' which was found mutilated at places and the Tribunal recorded a finding that the same is mutilated either on account of passage of time or with deliberate ulterior motive. The further defence of the management was that throughout his service, the workman never raised protest regarding wrong entry of date of birth. Thus, raising of such dispute just before 1 1/2 years of retirement clearly establishes that the workman has come with uncleaned hands.
7. The plea taken by workman was that Bank never asked him to produce the School Leaving Certificate. He is semi-literate person and he was absolutely unaware of the fact of wrong entry of date of birth.
8. After considering the case set up by both the parties, learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal observed as under:
"....With the claim statement, the workman filed the photostat copy of the certified copy of Kutumb Register, and on the date of argument he filed the original certified copy of the Kutumb Register. In it the date of birth of the workman is recorded as October 3, 1927 and that of his brother Shiv Sewak is recorded as September 4, 1929. In the column of occupation the word 'Agriculture' is written against the name of the workman and word service is written against the name of his brother. This copy was issued on March 28, 1955 when the workman was in service of the Bank...
9. The workman also filed School Leaving Certificate in pursuance of the order passed by Tribunal. In the School Leaving Certificate as well, the date of birth of the deceased workman was recorded as December 31, 1927. Thus, in view of aforesaid finding and documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the date of birth of workman was October 3, 1927 and he was entitled to continue in service till attainment of 60 years of age from October 3, 1927. The workman, was therefore, entitled to salary upto October 2, 1987 together with retirement benefit.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the award on the ground that on the basis of conflicting evidence, Tribunal should not have arrived at a conclusion that the date of birth of the workman was October 3, 1927. On the other hand, the award passed by the Tribunal was defended by Sri Sanjay Misra, learned counsel for the heirs and legal representatives of workman on the ground that the award is based on appraisal of evidence. The Kutumb Register and the School Leaving Certificate are clinching evidence and they clearly establish that the date of birth of the workman was October 3, 1927. That being so, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be upset in the writ jurisdiction.
11. Having heard respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that writ jurisdiction is very limited. This Court is not entitled to scrutinise sufficiency of evidence. If there is some evidence, and the same has been taken into consideration by the court below, normally this court, sitting in writ jurisdiction, is not entitled to disturb such finding of fact.
12. In view of aforesaid position of law, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner, Punjab National Bank is directed to grant salary for the period under the impugned award, to the heirs and legal representatives of the workman, late Ram Sewak Dubey (who died on November 24, 1993), in accordance with law, on production of sufficient evidence, including Succession certificate, by them, such payment will be made within six months from the date of production of necessary evidence by heirs and legal representatives of the deceased workman before the Bank, in accordance with law.