DECISION ' This appeal has been filed against the action of the respondent retiring the appellant from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent. According to the entry in the service book his birth date was shown as 15th Juno, 1918. However, in 1972 he made an application for change of the date of birth as 15th June, 1921, but he failed to produce any documentary proof and so his application was rejected. Subsequently, by letter dated 9th June, 1976 the appellant was informed that he would be retired from service on 10th June, 1976, as by that date he would be attaining the age of superannuation. On the following day dated 10th June, 1976 the appellant sent a grievance notice which was replied on 10th July, 1976. The appellant again sent another notice dated 13th July, 1976 and it was also replied on 16th August, 1976. Since no relief was granted, he approached the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R.
0. On 18th October, 1976.
3. The application was resisted. It was pleaded that the application was time-barred and there was no case on merits. Both these grounds were upheld by the Labour Court and the application was dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I see no reason to disagree with the Labour Court. The period of limitation would commence from 10th July, 1976 when the reply to the first notice was given. On the other hand, it was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the time should run from the date of reply to the second notice. This plea was rejected by the Labour Court and 1 am in complete agreement with him. Two notices are not contemplated by law. Only one notice is required to be given and that was the first notice dated 11th June, 1976 and the reply to it which should be considered for the purpose of limitation. Even on merits no case was made out as the appellant failed to produce any documentary proof in respect of his contention that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service book. According to him, the copy of the certificate issued by the Corporation of the city of Nagpur, showed that the date of birth was 11th June, 1921, but the original was never produced and, therefore, the copy could not be considered to be a substitute for original for the purpose of evidence or proof.
5. In result the appeal Is summarily dismissed.