1994 PLP 726 (PLC(CS))
ABDUL MATEEN CHISHTI Versus M/s. KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1994 PLP 726 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL MATEEN CHISHTI Versus M/s. KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 726 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 726 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 726 (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL MATEEN CHISHTI Versus M/s. KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsan Elahi, Representative for Appellant.
- Qasim Ali for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Date of birth‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Employee had challenged entry in his service book with regard to his date of birth which according to his version was different from his actual date of birth‑‑‑Service book, photo-stat copy of which had been produced on record, was quite absurd and worthless as even name and height of employee mentioned therein was wrong and ridiculous which could not be considered‑‑‑Employee in proof of his correct date of birth had produced Municipal Birth Certificate which he obtained from India, but was not authenticated by Pakistan High Commission in India‑‑‑Employee had also produced Matriculation Certificate obtained by him in 1964, but same also did not inspire confidence, because it was obtained by him after he had joined service, as a private student and Headmaster of concerned School also did not verify it‑‑‑All such documents were not produced by employee at time of his appointment‑‑‑According to Regulations framed by employers with regard to determination of age of employee, if documents like Matriculation Certificate, School Leaving Certificate or Municipal Birth Certificate were not produced by employee in proof of his age, it was obligatory on employers to have employee medically examined‑‑‑That having not been done by employers, order of retirement passed by employers on basis of birth entry in Service Book of employee which proved to be absurd and useless, was unlawful and could not be sustained‑‑‑Order of retirement was set aside subject to medical examination of employee and if he was found to have crossed age of 60 years which was age of superannuation, employee would be retired after providing him due hearing.
Judgment & Decree
and filed the petition before the Labour Court.
2. The petition came to be resisted by the respondent. Their contention was that there were repeated occasions before the petitioner to object to wrong entry if any but the question had only been raised at the fag‑end of the day to prolong his service. The other contentions also came to be denied.
3. The petitioner was his own witness. Rashid Ali Khan, Headmaster. Government Model School, Karachi was examined as a Court‑witness, while Hafeezur Rehman, Administrative Officer of the respondent's organisation appeared for the respondent.
4. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
5. It was contended by Mr. Qasim Ali learned counsel for the respondent that having signed the Service Book the appellant was estopped from challenging the entry as to be found therein. It also appears that the petitioner had filed the option form in 1979. The contention has weight and, therefore, let us have a look at the Service Book which has been produced in the photo-stat. Column 1 pertains to the name. Though on the showing of Hafeezur Rehman, the appellant's name on the record is Abdul Mateen Chishti, yet the column mentions him as M. Chishti. There is no justification forthcoming as to why this clipping.
6. Column No. 6 thereof pertains to "the exact height by measurement" and against this we find a mention of 4'‑6". That should be the height of a dwarf or a pygmy. The appellant who was present in Court did not appear to be below average. I, therefore, decided to have him measured in the Court. He was found to be 5 ft. 3 inches or so. The care with which the document was prepared is a sad commentary on the working of the Authority. It is not worth the paper it is written on and has to be discarded from consideration.
7. Adverting to the evidence produced by the appellant the Municipal. Birth Certificate which is from India is to be brushed aside as it is not authenticated by our High Commissioner in Delhi. Even the Matriculation Certificate which the appellant obtained in 1964, does not inspire much confidence because it was obtained after he had joined the services, as a private student. The Labour Court had sent for the Headmaster of the Model School, Karachi wherein the appellant is alleged to have been studying in 1948, as a Court‑witness. Rashid Ali Khan the Headmaster has clearly stated that the register for the year though bearing the name of the appellant as a student of class IV was totally silent in regard to the date of birth. If the register had that entry, it could have gone a long way, but that is not there and that takes me to clause 18 of the Karachi Development Authority Employees Service Regulations, 1973 which reads as under:‑‑ "
18. Determination of age ‑‑Every person appointed by initial recruitment shall, at the time of appointment, declare the date of his birth with confirmatory documentary evidence, such as a Matriculation Certificate, a School Leaving Certificate or a Municipal Birth Certificate. In the absence of any such document, his age shall be got determined from the authorised Medical Officer."
8. Admittedly when the appellant had applied foe the job he had not produced any of the documents as to be found in the aforesaid clause. It was obligatory on the respondent to have got the appellant medically examined for the determination of his age as enjoined by the aforesaid clause. That was not done. Even when the representation had been made by the respondent challenging the entry in the Service Book it did not occur to the respondents to j retrieve the situation.
9. The order of retirement in the circumstances was unlawful and cannot be sustained. He will be reinstate4 in service within 15 days. The respondent will have him examined by the authorised officer and that will be decisive. Whatever the results he will be entitled to his pay and other benefits from the date he handed over charge after retirement up to the date that the results are obtained. In full, because the order of retirement was unlawful and in flagrant breach of the Authority's Regulation. If, however, he is found to have crossed the age of superannuation (i.e. 60 years) he will be retired after providing him due hearing. The impugned order as a result is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2341/Lb.S order accordingly.