1990 PLP 48 (PLC)
NISAR AHMAD Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER (MILLS) and another
| Citation | 1990 PLP 48 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NISAR AHMAD Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER (MILLS) and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 48 (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 48 (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 48 (PLC) (NISAR AHMAD Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER (MILLS) and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Rafiq Khanzada for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Workman having given his own date of birth at the time of joining service had attained the age of sixty years at time of his retirement which fact was also corroborated by entry of his age in identity card‑‑Petitioner on basis of medical certificate in which civil surgeon after clinical examination of petitioner had opined that petitioner was less than 60 years at time of his retirement, challenged his retirement by filing grievance petition‑‑Medical certificate issued by Civil Surgeon was not based on any test of the petitioner, but it was only an opinion of Civil Surgeon on clinical examination of the petitioner‑ Civil Surgeon issuing certificate was not even examined before Labour Court‑ Grievance petition of petitioner challenging his retirement on ground that at time of his retirement he had not attained age of 60 years, held, was rightly rejected by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Workman having given his own date of birth at the time of joining service had attained the age of sixty years at time of his retirement which fact was also corroborated by entry of his age in identity card‑‑Petitioner on basis of medical certificate in which civil surgeon after clinical examination of petitioner had opined that petitioner was less than 60 years at time of his retirement, challenged his retirement by filing grievance petition‑‑Medical certificate issued by Civil Surgeon was not based on any test of the petitioner, but it was only an opinion of Civil Surgeon on clinical examination of the petitioner‑ Civil Surgeon issuing certificate was not even examined before Labour Court‑ Grievance petition of petitioner challenging his retirement on ground that at time of his retirement he had not attained age of 60 years, held, was rightly rejected by Labour Court. M. Rafiq Khanzada for Appellant. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court No.IV Karachi, dated 9‑4‑1989, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on joining the service of the respondent in 1972 the appellant gave his date of birth as 1928 which was duly entered in the record of the respondents. Admittedly National Identity Card, which was issued to the applicant in the year 1974, also shows the year of birth to be 1928. When he was nearing his retirement in 1987 he got himself examined by Civil Surgeon, Karachi, who opined that his age was 55 years. The certificate issued by learned Civil Surgeon does not appear to be based on any classification test. It appears to be only his opinion on clinical examination of the appellant. Even this doctor has not been examined by the respondents before the learned Labour Court. His grievance application, therefore, that he could not be retired in 1988 because he had still not attained the age of sixty years, has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court.
3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1479/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.