1995 PLP 729 (PLC(CS))
THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ATIQ‑UZ‑ZAMAN KHAN
| Citation | 1995 PLP 729 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ATIQ‑UZ‑ZAMAN KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 729 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 729 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 729 (PLC(CS)) (THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ATIQ‑UZ‑ZAMAN KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Izzat Puri for Appellant.
- M. Latif Saghar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Date of birth‑‑‑Correction of‑‑‑Date of birth as entered in service record of employee at time of his appointment was sought to be corrected according to date of birth as entered in birth certificate obtained by employee from his native place in India duly authenticated by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and also by Government of India‑‑‑No bar existed to alteration of date of birth entered in service record of employee if proof for such alteration had been obtained by him pending the terms of his employment‑‑‑Employee had an inherent right to have his correct age recorded in the service record.
Judgment & Decree
Izzat Puri for Appellant. M. Latif Saghar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st May, 1995. The appellants K.E.S.C. have called in question the decision of the Labour Court determining age of the respondent.
2. The respondent had joined the service of the K.E.S.C. on 22‑8‑1957. At that time the respondent's date of birth was entered in the service record as 1‑8‑1932. There was no evidence of age available at that time and this date of birth was recorded on the presumption that the respondent was'25 years of age at that time. Later on the respondent applied for correction of the date of birth in his service record and mentioned this date to be 30‑4‑1939. The K.E.S.C. declined to alter his date of birth. He therefore fled his grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court gave him time to obtain proof of date of birth from India. The respondent accordingly obtained two certificates from his native place Herdoi District Shahabad Uttar Pardesh. One is authenticated by Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Karachi and the other by Government of India. In both these certificates the date of birth of Atiq‑uz -Zaman Khan s/o Muhammad Rashid‑uz‑Zaman Khan of Mangla Kalee as mentioned is 30‑4‑1939. There is nothing suspicious about these certificates and in the absence of any other evidence these Certificates of birth have been held to be sufficient proof of age. The Labour Court accordingly accepted the entries of these Certificates and corrected the date of birth of the respondent to be the age entered in these Certificates. The K.E.S.C. has however appealed against the decision of the lower Court and insisted on premature retirement of the respondent.
3. There can be no bar to alteration of the date of birth entered in the service record, if the proof for such alteration has been obtained by the worker pending the terms of his employment. It is the inherent right of a person to have his correct age recorded in the service record and there is no objection against it. I therefore find no substance in this appeal of the K.E.S.C. against such correction. The order of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. The respondent may be reinstated in service according to the corrected age and for the period he remained out of job on retirement; he may be paid the difference by way of back benefits within a period of 15 days. H.B.T./2490/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.