1987 PLP 357 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 22‑A(8)(g) & 53‑‑Retirement‑‑Date of birth‑‑Employee questioning his date of birth recorded on basis of Matriculation certificate at time of entry into service according to which he was retired‑‑No evidence produced to establish factum of alleged correction in date of birth stated by employee to have been made on authority of a letter‑ Genuineness of letter, however, denied by department‑‑No case otherwise was made out to show that retirement of employer had been actuated by any intention on part of department to victimize appellant for his trade union activities‑‑Decision of employer retiring employee on basis of date of birth recorded in service book upheld in circumstances. Appellant in person. M.S.H. QURAISHI (CHAMIRAN).‑‑This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11‑2‑1986 of a learned Single Bench of this Commission, whereby the appellant's petition under section 25‑A read with section 22‑A (8) (g) of the I. R. O. , 1969 was dismissed. The controversy mainly relates to the date of birth of the petitioner. The date recorded at the time of his entry into service was 8‑7‑1923 on the basis of which he was retired from service by the respondent on 7‑7‑1983. The appellant questioned his retirement on the ground that his date of birth had been corrected by letter of the General Manager, dated 27‑2‑1951, a photostat of which was produced as P.3. The genuineness of this letter was, however, denied by the department according to whom no such letter had issued. Admittedly, the appellant's date of birth, in his Matriculation certificate, is shown as 8‑7‑1923. On the basis of the material produced before it, the learned Bench came to the view that there was conclusive evidence to show that his date of birth was 8‑7‑1923. The Bench also, found that the assertion that the appellant's retirement involved unfair labour practice was "absolutely vague" and that no list of witnesses had been filed in support of the same. The Bench, therefore, dismissed the appellant's petition. However, since he had worked upto 12‑6‑1985, the Bench ordered that the wages paid to him upto that date should not be recovered from him. The appellant before us has drawn our attention to letters at P/3 and P/15. P/3 as already mentioned, has not been owned by the Department. P/15 is only a copy of a letter dated 8‑8‑1982 purported to have been issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer. According to the appellant its original has been shown to the learned Bench. But even if this were true, the original had not been proved. No evidence had. in fact, been produced to establish the factum of the alleged correction in the date of birth, said to have been made in 1951. Under the circumstance, the respondent's decision to retire the appellant on A the basis of the date of birth as recorded in hi service book at the time of his entry into service is not open to challenge. Even otherwise, no case had been made out to show that the retirement had been actuated by any intention on the part of the Department to victimize the appellant for his trade union activities. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. Y. H./76/Lb Appeal dismissed.