2011 PLC 191 (PLP)

BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).

The petitioner has filed the present petition under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008 stating therein that he has joined the respondent management as workman on 1-7-1981 but at the time of joining the management the respondents had wrongly recorded his date of birth as 17-6-1950 and on the basis of that wrongly recorded birth date the notice of retirement has been issued by the management on 20-9-2008. The petitioner along with his petition has produced photo copy of NIC issued to him on 30-8-1978, copy of CNIC and School Leaving, certificate and also medical card issued by the respondents which also show that his date of birth is 1956 and therefore the petitioner claims that keeping in view all these genuine documents produced by the petitioner before this Bench of Commission as well as before the respondent management he is not liable to be retired on 16-6-2010.

2. The petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondents and today Mr. Shaukat Ali, advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents and he submitted that this Commission has already decided 23 petitions of KDLB, wherein all the 23 petitions were decided relying upon the decision of honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as order of Full Bench of NIRC and it was observed that any official entering in to service is authorized to get his birth date change within the period of two. years of entry in service and he opposed the grant of stay order.

3. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel and have gone through the pleadings and material placed on record.

4. The petitioner was issued retirement notice by the respondents management on 20-9-2008 and he remained silent for all this period and at the end of his career when he was going to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner has approached the management for correction of his birth date vide application dated 2-4-2010 and the management on 10-5-2010 has regretted to change/alter the birth date of the petitioner at this stage (Annexure C/2). It is very surprising to note that when the petitioner was served with notice of retirement in the month of September, 2008 what prevented him to approach this Bench of Commission immediately after serving of notice of retirement but after remaining absent for about two years the petitioner has approached this Bench of Commission that he is being retired by the respondents management by way of unfair labour practice.

5. Moreover the petitioner has levelled only bald and general allegations and no specific instance of any act of unfair labour practice has been quoted. He has also failed to specify his trade union activities due to which the respondents have annoyed with him to the extent that they have issued his retirement letter dated 20-9-2008. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondents have recorded wrong date of birth of the petitioner as an act of unfair labour practice.

6. It is worth to mention here that there is plethora of case law where our superior Courts have observed that retirement of an employee on attaining the age of superannuation does not come within the ambit of unfair labour practice. In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable as such' the same stands dismissed along with stay application. H.H.T./2/NIRC Petition dismissed.