1995 PLP 59 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 19th September, 1994. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad dismissing the petition which had been filed before him under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The circumstances forming the background of this case in brief are as follows: The petitioner had joined his services with the respondent on 1‑8‑1957 as a cleaner and in due course had been promoted as a driver. On 20‑6‑1990 he was informed through a letter that he would stand retired from service on 30‑7‑1993 on attaining the age of superannuation. He had thereupon sent a letter to the Divisional Personnel Officer on 24‑11‑1992 to correct the records as he was born on 1‑8‑1938 and not on 30‑7‑1933 and that would take him to 31‑7‑1998. The request was turned down per letter dated 2‑1‑1993. It was thereafter that he states to have made an appeal to the Divisional Superintendent on 11‑2‑1993. As it did not bear any fruit he had sent a grievance notice and later filed the petition.

2. The petition was resisted on the grounds that it was barred by time and also that the petitioner had concocted a false case by the interpolation of his own personal record. .

3. The petitioner was his own witness while Rasheed Saeed appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. Both the issues were found against the petitioner culminating in this appeal,

5. There is no gainsaying the fact that the appellant was informed about the date of his retirement in the month of June 1990. He had made a representation to the Divisional Personnel Officer after a lapse of about 18 months. Thereafter what he had done was to submit another representation to the Divisional Superintendent that is the respondent. It is not an appeal which he in his cross‑examination ruefully admitted. The grievance notice having been sent as late as 30‑4‑1993, demonstrably the bar of limitation had set in, and that is enough to dispose of the appeal.

6. It might however be added that 2 seniority lists had been issued and circulated among the Railway Staff. The‑first was in 1975 and the other one in 1988. These gave his date of birth also and it had come in knowledge, as these lists are widely circulated and also put on Notice Boards. The appellant had never raised any objection. The entry in the Service Book also shows his date of birth as 30‑7‑1933. It is only his personal file record which is easily accessible in the record room and, wherein on his showing he had a personal friend by the name of Asghar Ali who used to extend him some favours where the interpolation was made. In the circumstances there is no credence to be given to the same as against the entry in the Service Book which is duly signed by him and wherein the date of birth is clearly mentioned as 30‑7‑1933. The bid to extend the lease of his service life was started at the fag‑end of the career.

7. Mr. Muhammad Hussain Dawoodani has referred me to 2 cases namely Ali Raza v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi 1983 PLC 965 and Shamshad Khan v. Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company 1983 PLC 683 where the view taken was that the declaration form signed by a workman at the time where he entered into service of the respondent, and which he had not disputed before the notice of retirement would be considered to contain a correct record about his age. I agree with the view.

8. There is no merit in the appeal I will therefore dismiss it. H.B.T./2361/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.