1983 PLP 683 (PLC(CS))

Industrial dispute ‑‑‑

Age‑Date of birth‑Dispute raised at time of superannuation‑ No reliable evidence produced to rebut entry in Declaration Form submitted at time of joining service‑Entry in such form, in circum stances, to be considered as correct. Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. Date of hearing : 30th August, 1982. ORDBR The appellant, who was employed as a peon in the respondent- Company, was ordered to be retired from service, on attaining the age of 58 years, with effect from 12th September, 1981, vide order of the respon dent‑Company, dated 21st July, 1981. The appellant challenged the validity of this order before the learned Labour Court through a grievance petition but the same was rejected by the learned Labour Court, vide its decision, given on 14th July, 1982. It is not disputed that age of retire ment for the staff in the respondent‑Company is 58 years. The 'only issue which was argued before me by Mr. Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant, was whether the appellant had attained the age of 58 years, as held by the learned Labour Court. It was urged by the learned counsel that in his application for membership of the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Workers' Union, dated 6th May, 1968, the appellant had shown his date of birth as August, 1933. This document is of no assistance to the appellant as it does not indicate on what basis or material the above date has been shown as the date of birth of the appellant Mr. Muhammad. Kazim also relied upon the identity Card of the appel lant, which gives his age as 42 years as on 29th March, 1975, when the Identity Card was issued. The Identity Card also suffers from the same in firmity as the application form for the membership of the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Workers' Union as it does not indicate the basis on which the above age is given. Moreover, both these documents have been prepar ed by or at the instance of the appellant. Mr. Muhammad Kazim next relied upon the date of birth of the appellant as given in the Staff Medical Benefit Scheme Identification Book and Treatment Record. In this book, the date of birth of the appellant has been given as 29th September, 1933. It may be pointed out that this appears to be a second Identifica tion Book. The previous book has not been produced suggesting thereby that it was not favourable to the appellant. Furthermore it has been explained by witness Abdul Mannan Munir Khan, the Administrative Manager of the respondent‑Company, that not only the Staff Medical Benefits Scheme Identification Book is not a part of the personnel. record but further the date of birth as ab9wn therein was not verified.

3. As against the above unreliable and inconclusive evidence in respect of the age of the appellant, there is first of all Declaration Form for the purpose of the Staff Provident Fund made by the appellant on 15th May, 1970, wherein he has shown his date of birth as 20th August, 1923. This declaration has not only been signed by the appellant but further it has been attested by the Head of the department and verified by two witnesses, who are employees of the respondent‑Company. Strong support to the date of birth of the appellant as given in the said appli cation is provided by the admitted fact that before joining the respondent Company in 1967, he had served for 18 years in the Stationery Department. The appellant has further admitted that at the time when he joined the Stationery Department, he was about 25 years of age. It may further be pointed out that the appellant took no exception to his age as recorded in his declaration form until he was served with the letter, dated 21st July, 1981, when he was due to retire with effect from 12th September, 1981 on attaining the age of 58 years. Even after the receipt of the above letter, the appellant made discrepant statements as to his age. In his letter, dated 20th August, 1981, he claimed that he was 46 years of age and not 58 years. However, in his subsequent letter, dated 1st Septem ber, 1981, he stated that he was 48 years of age. This indicates that either the appellant is not a truthful person or he has no idea of his age. As such, the Declaration Form signed by him at the time when he entered the service of the respondent, and which he has not disputed until the notice of his retirement, would be considered to contain a correct record about his age.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would agree with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the appellant had been correctly retired with effect from 12th September, 1981, and dismiss the appeal in limine.