1990PLC53 (PLP)

Ehsan Ellahi Khan, representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court No.l, Karachi dated 20‑3‑1989, whereby he allowed the grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O. filed by the respondent. This appeal was fixed for Final Hearing on 3 9‑1989 but at the request of the counsel of the appellants and by consent of Mr. Ehsan Elahi Khan, the representative of the respondent the appeal was ante dated and heard today.

2. The brief facts of the case appear to be, that the respondent was working as Head Clerk with the appellants. He was retired on 3‑3‑1988 with retrospective effect viz. from 27‑8‑1985 and consequently his encashment of LPR was also withdrawn. Admittedly at the relevant time the service book of the respondent showed his date of birth to be 7‑12‑1936. However, when service book was produced before the `Competent Authority' for the purpose of sanctioning of encashment leave, it came to his knowledge that there was erasion in the date of birth. Relying on the Military Discharge Certificate of the respondent, his date of birth was corrected to be in the year of 1925 and consequently impugned retirement order was passed. The respondent after serving grievance notice upon the appellant filed grievance petition. The appellant resisted the grievance application and being dissatisfied with the impugned order of learned Labour Court has filed this appeal.

3. The facts of the case, more or less, appear to be admitted. Admittedly the date of birth in the Service Book was 7‑12‑1936 but competent authority came to the conclusion that there was erasion in the date of birth and consequently changed the date of birth basing its conclusion on Military Discharge Certificate. Admittedly this Military Discharge Certificate is not signed by any authority and does not bear any seal of the Military Authority. Admittedly the provisions of the Rule No. 18 of the K.D.A. Employees Service Regulations, 1973 was not complied with while determining the age of the respondent. This provision requires that age is to be determined on the basis of Matriculation Certificate, School Leaving Certificate, Minicipal Certificate/Register or Medical Certificate. Admittedly the respondent was not called upon to produce any of the above documents for the purpose of determination of his age. What strikes me more is that the change of date of birth was effected in the Service Book of the respondent without notice to him and without giving him any opportunity to be heard. This order changing his date of birth obviously adversely affected the rights of the respondent. It is settled law, that no such order should be passed without giving opportunity to the person effected, of being heard and showing cause against passing of adverse order. This action of the appellants obviously is against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.

4. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court. However it is open to the respondents to determine the age of the appellant afresh after complying with relevant provisions and rules of natural justice.

5. With this observation the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./1481/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.