1984 PLP 1303 (PLC(CS))

(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Petition before Labour Court‑Limitation‑Petition filed within limitation period and otherwise competent‑Withdrawn with permission to file fresh petition‑Limitation question, in circum stances, held, would not arise against fresh petition. Syed Samar Hussain Shah for Appellants. Malik Bashir Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing : 24th April, 1984. The titled appeal is directed against the decision, dated 29th January, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2" Lahore dismissing the grievance petition of the appellants for their re instatement in service. Cross‑objections have been filed by the respondent and the same are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.

2. The appellants have been retired from service on the plea that they have reached the age of superannuation of 60 years. ‑ Both the appellants were got medically examined for the age by the Board of three doctors and they certified that by appearance their age was over 60 years. So far as Abdul Aziz, appellant No. 2, is concerned, the medical certificate is Exh. R. 9 Abdul Aziz relied upon medical certificate Exh. P. 3 issued by the Medical Superintendent in 1977. According to this certificate, his age in 1977 was 47/48 years. Since Exh. R‑9 is based upon the opinion of three doctors, whereas Exh. P. 3 was issued by one doctor who too was the member of the Board that issued Exh. R. 9, the learned lower Court was justified in relying upon Exh. R. 9 and discarding Exh. P.

3. In the absence of birth entry or school leaving certificate, only the . doctor's opinion is to be relied upon. So far as Taj Din is concerned, the certificate of Board of doctors is Exh. R‑

3. He relied upon the photostat of the identity card of his brother Fazal Din Exhs. P‑8 ‑and P‑

9. Age is entered in identity card as stated by the person concerned and the authorities that issue the cards do not hold any enquiry. So, the age given in such documents is not reliable. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly reject ed the same. Exh. P‑7 is the age certificate of Fazal Din. Date of birth is given therein but Fazal Din deposed that he did not give the date of birth to the Railway authorities. This is not known from what source the date of birth was given in Exh. P‑

7. So, this document too was rightly rejected, by the learned lower Court.

3. Abdul Aziz has rightly been held as not a workman. As stated by him and P.W. 4 he used to take work from the employees working under him and if and when his subordinates felt difficulty he made them . under stand by giving demonstration. His main duty was, therefore, to supervise and take work from others. He was not covered by the definition of work man given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Like wise he was not covered by the definition given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as his duty was supervisory and his pay as stated by him was Rs. 900.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has in support of his cross objections argued that the grievance notice and second petitions were time barred. The previous notice Exh. P‑4 was in order as it was given by the General Secretary and not by any lawyer. There was no need to withdraw, the previous petition with permission to bring a fresh one. Since permission was accorded and previous petition too was competent, no question of limitation would arise.

5. As a result; the appeal and cross‑objections are dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.