1988 PLP 494 (PLC)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CBDC, LAHORE DIVISION and 2 others Versus KARAM DIN
| Citation | 1988 PLP 494 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi. Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CBDC, LAHORE DIVISION and 2 others Versus KARAM DIN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 494 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 494 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi. Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 494 (PLC) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CBDC, LAHORE DIVISION and 2 others Versus KARAM DIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Azam Bhaur for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1987.
- ‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Cogent reason and sufficient ground‑‑Late supply of necessary documents to Advocate by employer establishment, held, was no ground for condonation.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑‑ ‑‑‑ Age‑‑Date of birth‑‑Presumption is that date of birth in Service record is given according to information furnished by employee‑‑Such date cannot be ignored without any strong evidence‑‑Medical certificates give ages approximately and are based upon general appearance hence cannot be said to be opinion of expert. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Cogent reason and sufficient ground‑‑Late supply of necessary documents to Advocate by employer establishment, held, was no ground for condonation.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Cogent reason and sufficient ground‑‑Late supply of necessary documents to Advocate by employer establishment, held, was no ground for condonation. Azam Bhaur for Appellants. Date of hearing: 6th December, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 13‑10‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No‑1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and it was directed that his date of retirement was 17‑5‑1984 and not 15‑6‑1982. It was further directed that the amount of Rs.10,837.83 deducted as over payment should be refunded.
2. The facts are that in the service record of the respondent his date of birth was given as 16‑6‑1922. He was got medically examined on 18‑5‑1979 and the doctor declared that on the said date his age was fifty years. According to the certificate, the date of birth was 18‑5‑1924 and accordingly he was retired on 17‑5‑1984. Audit objection was raised to the effect that the appellants could not change the date of birth, therefore, the effect of the retirement of the respondent was given from 15‑6‑82.
3. Unless contrary is proved, the presumption is that in the service record the date of birth is given according to the information furnished by the employee concerned, therefore, without any strong evidence the said date cannot be ignored. In the present case the appellants had relied upon a medical certificate. Firstly medical certificates give ages approximately and secondly they are based upon general appearance and thus cannot be said to be the opinion of an expert. Any person by appearance can assess the age of a person.
4. However, the appeal is time‑barred and there is no cogent reason for the condonation of delay. The ground given in the application for condonation of delay is that the department supplied necessary documents to the learned counsel late. This is no ground for condonation. The counsel has not to give his justification for filing the appeal late, but the appellants have to put forward cogent reasons by which they were prevented from bringing the appeal in time. Since no cogent reason is given, this is not a case for condonation of delay.
5. As a result, the appeal is rejected as time‑barred in limine. A.E./4761Lb.P Appeal rejected.