1986 PLP 300 (PLC)
DILSHAD ALI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE
| Citation | 1986 PLP 300 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | DILSHAD ALI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 300 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 300 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 300 (PLC) (DILSHAD ALI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Date of birth‑‑Entry in passport and identity card made on basis of assertion of person concerned and without inquiry‑‑Has very little evidentiary value‑‑Entry in service record duly thumb‑marked by employee, held, rightly given reliance as compared to those in school leaving certificate without bearing seal of issuing authority, passport and identity card.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Date of birth‑‑Entry in passport and identity card made on basis of assertion of person concerned and without inquiry‑‑Has very little evidentiary value‑‑Entry in service record duly thumb‑marked by employee, held, rightly given reliance as compared to those in school leaving certificate without bearing seal of issuing authority, passport and identity card. Muhammad Ismail for Appellant. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985. The decision, dated 1‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant challenging his retirement was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties is about the date of birth of the appellant. The appellant relies upon school leaving certificate Exh. P.3, Passport Exh. P.5 and identification card Exh. P.6. The learned lower Court has rejected these documents and has relied upon the service record Exh. R.1 alleged to have been received from Luck now (India) and service 'record Exh. R.2 prepared and maintained by the respondent in Pakistan. While issuing passports and identity cards no' inquiry is made about the date of birth asserted by the persons concerned, so these documents have very little ,evidentiary value.. So) far as school leaving certificate Exh.P.3 is concerned, it does not bear the seal of the authority which issued it and thus is valueless. So far as Exh. R.1 is concerned, no sufficient and cogent evidence was produced to the effect that in reality this document was received from Lucknow (India). It does not bear the seal of the issuing authority and certificate of correctness endorsed by the Embassy. However, Exh. R.2 has sufficient evidentiary value as it bears the thumb‑impression of the appellant. The appellant has not denied his thumb‑impression. Exh. R.2 bears the seal of the authority too. The date of birth given in it is 22‑6‑1924 and according to it, the appellant has been retired. Exh. P.1 does not advance the case of the appellant as it bears the date of his birth as 9‑12‑1922. In bracket no doubt the date of birth given is as 18‑9‑1925 but it is on the basis of school leaving certificate Exh. P.3 which does not bear the seal of the issuing authority as remarked above. The learned lower Court has thus rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine:' Appeal dismissed