1995 PLP 357 (PLC)

Dilawar Hussain for Appellant. Shaikh Wahid Bux, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing : 1st February, 1995. The only question raised in appeal is regarding age of the respondent. The respondent came from Alwar State where he had studied up ‑to Class II. He then joined Primary School Tando. Jam up to Class III. He left School on 27‑2‑1952. According to the School Leaving Certificate his date of birth was 12th November, 1938. He then joined the Army. According to the army record also his date of birth was 12th November, 1939. He was discharged from Army on 4th October, 1956 at the age of 19 years. He joined Army on 1st February, 1952 and discharged on 4th October, 1956. He then joined S.R.T.C. the respondent Corporation as a driver on 1st December, 1961. According to the respondent no enquiry was made from him regarding his age but he was sent for medical examination and the Fitness Certificate was obtained. The Fitness Certificate showed his approximate age as 29 years on 29‑11‑1961. In 1974 the respondent obtained his National Identity Card according to which also his age was 35 years on 5th May, 1952. The respondent was given Notice of retirement on 29th November, 1992 but prior to that the respondent had made an application for correction of his age on 4th September, 1991. This was rejected on 16th September, 1991. He repeated the application giving proof of his age namely School Leaving Certificate and Army Discharge Certificate. According to these Certificates his date of birth was 12th November, 1938 and his date of superannuation after 60 years on 11th November, 1998. The respondent received no reply. The respondent then appealed to Chairman S.R.T.C. on 9th December, 1991 but he got no reply. He sent his grievance notice to the appellant on 7th June, 1992 and then filed his application in the Labour Court on 4th July, 1992. The learned Labour Court relying on the proof namely School Leaving Certificate and Army Discharge Certificate allowed the grievance application and directed that the retiring age of 60 years should be construed as 11th November, 1998. Against this decision the Corporation has preferred this appeal.

2. The only point raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation is that of laches. He states that for 30 years, the respondent had made no effort to get his age corrected and therefore his claim for correction of age being belated should not be considered. The determination of the correct age is however a vested right and it cannot be defeated by influx of time. There is no statute to prohibit consideration of age after any lapse of time. He can raise this point at any stage during his service. The only proof produced by the Corporation is the Medical Certificate but it is an admitted fact that even when the medical opinion is based on accurate date there is margin of error of about 2/3 years. On the other hand the proof produced by the respondent appears to be more authentic. Under the circumstances I can see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court which is accordingly maintained and the appeal dismissed. H.B.T./2418/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.