1993 PLP 503 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI11 or 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Age‑‑ Determination of‑‑"‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Employee had alleged that his date of birth as recorded in his service book, was incorrect, whereas date of birth as claimed by him was correct‑‑‑As there was a difference of 5 years in respective contentions of parties National Industrial Relations Commission framed issue in that respect and after recording statement of Court witness, deferred case for evidence of 'employee‑‑ Commission on the said date on request of employers directed that a Medical Board be constituted for determination of age of employee‑‑‑Commission by allowing prayer of employers to constitute Medical Board to solve controversy with regard to age of employee had not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error which could be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. A.B. Malik for Petitioner. Challenge in this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been made to order dated 9‑1‑1993 whereby the learned member, National Industrial Relations Commission has directed the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore to constitute a Medical Board under his chairmanship for examination of age of the petitioner with two experts to be nominated by him alongwith him to sit and examine the petitioner and to record a report concerning the age of the petitioner Nazir Ahmad son of Chanan Din, S.P.O. Works 644 House Power House Ravi Rayon Tehsil Ferozewala" The grievance hoisted by the petitioner in these proceedings is that the examination of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor, an Assistant in the office of the Chief Inspector Boilers Punjab, Poonch House, Lahore, as Court‑witness, clearly points to the date of birth of the petitioner being 15‑1‑1936 and not 15‑1‑1931, as mentioned in the service book of the petitioner. According to him after the recording of the statement of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor, afore-referred, as Court‑witness and after the document namely Certificate of Competency for Third Class Engineer granted under the Boilers Act, 1923 was exhibited as CW‑1/1, there was no need for any further probe into the matter.

2. I have heard the learned counsel at some length and have also perused the material appended to this petition. Issue No. 2, struck by the learned Member `NIRC in petitioner's application under section 22‑A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969, reads as under:‑‑ "Whether the date of birth recorded in the service book is incorrect? If so, what is the correct date?" The perusal of the impugned order dated 9‑1‑1993 shows that after the recording of the statement of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor as C.W.1 on 9‑12‑1992, the cause was deferred to 9‑1‑1993 for evidence of the petitioner. On the said date, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the employers before the learned Member, NIRC to the effect that a Medical Board be constituted to give expert opinion about the age of the petitioner, was, allowed and the order, impugned herein, was rendered by the Member concerned. It is not denied that the dispute with regard to the age of the petitioner is still under consideration with the learned Member, NIRC. The casting of issue No. 2, reproduced in para. 2 above, indicates the anxiety of the parties as well as the Court to determine the question of age of the petitioner. There is a gap of at least five years between the respective contentions of the parties in that regard. The allegation that correct age of the petitioner is not mentioned in his service book, falls for proof to be led by the petitioner, which is still in progress. The second part of the said issue deals with the responsibility/duty of the concerned Tribunal to reach the conclusion regarding the correct date of birth of the petitioner. It is with a view to putting at rest the controversy betwixt the parties that a Court witness was examined and document Exh. CW.1/1, relied upon by the petitioner in support of his plea that 15th of January, 1936 is the correct date of his birth, was sought to be controverted through petitioner's' examination by a Medical Board. The request made by the employers in that regard, was allowed by the learned Member, NIRC and no illegality, much-less any jurisdictional error in the conduct of proceedings in application under clause (g) of subsection (8) of section 22‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), has been pointed out. The instant petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./N‑130/L Petition dismissed.