1995 PLP 174 (PLC)

Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1993. This appeal under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969, arises from order of Labuor Court No. 5 at Karachi in an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O. seeking redress against alleged premature retirement from service.

2. Appellant Khan Zaman, resident of Hazara, joined K.E.S.C. as a cooly in the work charged establishment on 26‑10‑1954. No date of birth was mentioned in the employment card given to him but his age was stated to be 19 years. Since this was temporary service no further record was maintained in the Corporation. After 7 years he was appointed as member of regular staff as a Lineman and his date of birth was mentioned as 26‑10‑1927. This date is said to have been mentioned by the appellant himself in the Staff Record Form. Annexure "A" which bears thumb‑impression of the appellant since he was illiterate and could not sign his name. Regular record of his service was kept and every year ACRs were issued showing his date of birth as 26‑10‑1927. No objection was received from the appellant for correcting his age. Thereafter he was informed by a letter, dated 9‑1‑1984 that since he had exceeded the age limit of 55 years, he was to appear before the Chief Medical Officer for Annual Medical Check‑up. The appellant complied with this letter and every year submitted himself to medical examination. According to Inter‑Departmental Memo it was confirmed from his record, which was computerised, that his date of birth. was 26‑10‑1927. He was then retired from 26‑10‑1987. On 25‑10‑1987, the day preceding his retirement, he made an application to the Corporation, received on 26‑10‑1987, that his retirement age should be calculated with reference to his original employment card as temporary coolly where his age was mentioned on 26‑10‑1954 as 19 years. The Corporation found that this card was not, preserved and kept on his Personal File but the date mentioned at the time of appointment as regular Lineman was entered in the computer and his history of service showed that his later age was considered genuine at the time of his retirement. The appellant had even been given prior notice of retirement on 20‑5‑1987, but he did not raised any objection and it was only one day prior to retirement that he filed his grievance petition.

3. Since no further proof of age had been submitted to alter the date of birth in his record the Corporation turned down his claim that he was to retire on 26‑10‑1995. The appellant then made an application to the Labour Court on 11‑1‑1990 which was dismissed on 19‑12‑1992. It was held that his date of birth was not 26‑10‑1935 as alleged by him but it was 26‑10‑1927.

4. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that his age as mentioned in his employment card as a cooly in the work charged establishment should be considered as authentic in preference to the age said to have been mentioned by him at the time of his appointment as regular Line‑Man in the employment of the K.E.S.C. In my opinion this cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for alteration of the age. The appellant has acquiesced to entery of age in his service record throughout his service period A and has not raised any objection until the last day of his retirement.

5. I can, therefore, see no reason for interference in the order of the learned Labour Court. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./2388/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.