1990 PLP 620 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS
| Citation | 1990 PLP 620 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 620 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 620 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 620 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Kazim for Appellant.
- Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1990.
- 3. I have heard Mr. M.M. Kazim, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Retirement‑‑‑Superannuation‑‑‑Appellant worker was retired from service by Management on ground of superannuation on reaching age of sixty years‑‑‑Appellant claiming that he had not reached age of superannuation ‑‑‑In date of birth enter, d in register of Management at time of entry of appellant in service, there appeared an overwriting of figures ' in the year of birth which initially was 1934 but was subsequently, by overwriting, it was made 1925‑‑ Appellant also produced medical certificate of Civil Surgeon wherein appellant was held to be of 55 years of age‑‑‑Year of birth entered in the Company's Card was shown to be 1934 and in National Identity Card it was 1936; whereas date of birth given by Management in form for grant of Old Age Benefits was 1925 as such evidence with regard to date of birth was not found to be satisfactory‑‑‑Out of all said dates, age given by Civil Surgeon appearing to be more reliable according to which appellant would retire on some date in 1990‑‑‑Held, as there was dispute with regard to date of birth of appellant, his retirement without giving him an opportunity to be heard, was in violation of principle of natural justice‑‑ Order of management retiring appellant from an earlier date was set aside and Appellant was ordered to he retired from date of decision of case after payment of 50% back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. I at Karachi, dated 14‑3‑1989, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are, that the appellant was employee of the respondent who retired him on 30‑5‑1989 on the ground of superannuation on reaching 60 years of age. The appellant claimed that he had not reached age of superannuation and, therefore, he served a grievance notice upon the respondent and then filed the grievance petition in the learned Labour Court.
3. I have heard Mr. M.M. Kazim, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. It appears, that in the date of birth entered in the register bf the respondent at the time of entry of the appellant in service, there is overwriting of figure "2" over figure "3", in the year of birth, which initially was 1934 but was subsequently by overwriting it was made 1925. The appellant has also produced the medical certificate of the Civil Surgeon, dated 4‑7‑1985, wherein the appellant was held to be of 55 years of age. The year of birth of the appellant entered in the company card is shown to be year 1934. The year of birth shown in the National Identity Card is 193,
6. The year of birth of the appellant in the form for the grant of Old Age Benefits is shown to be 1925, but admittedly this form was filled by the respondent, though the signatures on the form are admittedly of the appellant, which are said to be specimen signatures.
5. The evidence with regard to the date of birth produced by both the parties does not appear to be satisfactory. Out of all these dates the age given by the Civil Surgeon appears to be more reliable according to which the appellant would retire on some date in 1990.
6. As there was dispute with regard to the date of birth of the appellant his retirement without giving him the opportunity to be heard is violation of principles of natural justice and such an order is not sustainable. However, as pointed above from the certificate of Civil Surgeon, the appellant would attain the age of superannuation on some date this year. Considering all these evidence and facts discussed above, I set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and order the retirement of the appellant from today 12th March, 1990. As during the intervening period the appellant had not worked in the respondent's factory and there is no evidence, whether during this period he was gainfully employed or not, I award him 50% back benefits. He would also be entitled to the additional retirement benefits which might accrue to him on his fresh retirement on 12‑3‑1990. M.Y.H./1682/Lb. S Appeal allowed.