1997 PLP 380 (PLC)
KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD, KARACHI Versus MOHSIN ALI
| Citation | 1997 PLP 380 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD, KARACHI Versus MOHSIN ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 380 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 380 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 380 (PLC) (KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD, KARACHI Versus MOHSIN ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Yousha for Appellant.
- 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any better evidence of age. He relies upon the age given by the respondent himself at the time of appointment in the P.W.D. but that is no proof of age. There is, therefore, no ground for setting aside the decision of the Labour Court regarding age.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Age‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑In absence of Matriculation Certificate or Birth Certificate, date of superannuation of employee was determined by Civil Surgeon‑‑‑Age of employee according to Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon was different from one mentioned in his Identity Card and employee was retired from service on strength of his Identity Card and not on strength of Medical Certificate of Civil Surgeon‑‑‑Age in Identity Card could not be considered more authentic than Medical Certificate‑‑‑Labour Court, thus rightly gave preference to medical evidence in determining age of superannuation of employee especially when employer had failed to point out any better evidence of age of employee.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Age‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑In absence of Matriculation Certificate or Birth Certificate, date of superannuation of employee was determined by Civil Surgeon‑‑‑Age of employee according to Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon was different from one mentioned in his Identity Card and employee was retired from service on strength of his Identity Card and not on strength of Medical Certificate of Civil Surgeon‑‑‑Age in Identity Card could not be considered more authentic than Medical Certificate‑‑‑Labour Court, thus rightly gave preference to medical evidence in determining age of superannuation of employee especially when employer had failed to point out any better evidence of age of employee. S.M. Yousha for Appellant. Respondent Mohsin Ali had filed petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before the 1st Sindh Labour Court; Karachi. His grievance was that he was being illegally retired from service with effect from 1‑3‑1993 when according to Medical Certificate he should retire on 16‑9‑1998.
2. On the date of hearing the employers Karachi Water and Sewerage Board were called absent. There was no adjournment application. The learned Labour Court therefore passed an ex parte order. In the course of ex parte proof, evidence of the petitioner was recorded. According to the Certificate of Civil Surgeon, Karachi, the date of superannuation that is 60 years was to be on 16‑9‑1998. There was no other documentary evidence such as the Matriculation Certificate, Birth Certificate etc. The respondent was being retired on the strength of only his Identity Card. The age in the Identity Card cannot be considered more authentic than the Medical Certificate. The decision was therefore given by the 1st Sindh Labour Court, A Karachi on merits and preference was given to the medical evidence.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any better evidence of age. He relies upon the age given by the respondent himself at the time of appointment in the P.W.D. but that is no proof of age. There is, therefore, no ground for setting aside the decision of the Labour Court regarding age.
4. The decision is, therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./132/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.