1987 PLP 807 (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Ahmad Syed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987. These are two appeals filed by the appellants against a common impugned order, dated 6‑11‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petitions of the respondents, separately filed by them under section 25‑A, I. R. Q. 1969. As the facts and circumstances of both the cases are same and similar and also the impugned order is common, I would, therefore, decide these two appeals by this single decision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that both the respondents were permanent employees of the appellants and were initially notified to be retired on attaining their age of superannuation as per entries in service Books. Thereafter, both the respondents applied for change of their respective dates of births in view of the documents submitted by them. As regards, respondent Mohd. Yaqoob, he submitted a school leaving certificate of Government primary school, Khanpur, Kotri, showing his date of birth as 5‑12‑1929, as against the entries in his Service Book showing the date of birth as 13‑8‑1926 as assessed by the civil surgeon, allegedly about 11 years ago. While, as regards, respondent, Rafiullah, he submitted a Birth Certificate issued by the Chairman, Union Council Shahkot, District Mansehra, showing the date of birth as 6‑7‑1934, as against the entries in his Service Book, showing his date of birth as 24‑3‑1926, on the alleged assessment by the civil surgeon before a period of about 11 years. That after receipt of these Authentic documents, the appellant No. 2, admittedly a competent authority, had rectified, the wrong entries and then, entered the correct dates of births in the Service Books of the respondents according to their respective documents and thereafter had withdrawn the orders notifying their retirements on attaining the ages of superannuation. Further, it was the case of the respondents that after a lapse of about three months of these withdrawal orders by the competent authority and thereby acted upon, the appellant No.l had very illegally interfered into the matters and issued suo motu orders on 30‑12‑1985, cancelling the above withdrawal orders of the retirement of the respondent by the competent authority, i.e. appellant No.2, and even without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing and thus, the respondents were forceably stood retired, prematurely. Hence, both the respondents submitted grievance petitions.

3. The appellant No.l had resisted these petitions before the learned Labour Court, mainly on the ground that firstly the appellant No.2, i.e. Superintendent, Telegraph workshop was not a competent authority, either to entertain the fresh documents submitted by the respondent after a long delay of about 11, years, to rectify the wrong entries in the Service Books and to make fresh entries in accordance with the documents, or to notify and/or to withdraw the retirement orders, without consultation of, appellant No.l who was the head of the Department, thus the retirement of the respondent on their attaining the ages of superannuation on the basis of the assessment by the Civil Surgeon about 11 years ago, was correct, therefore, the respondents could not maintain their grievance petitions, which were liable to be dismissed.

4. By consent, both the parties did not lead evidence and made a joint statement that the cases be decided in view of the documents brought on the record of the court. Thereafter, the respondents grievance petitions were allowed. Hence these appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Syed, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases as well as the documents on record. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, the learned Advocate for the appellants had adopted the arguments as submitted by him before the learned Labour Court and has nothing to add. However, Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Syed, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents had pleaded that the appellant No.2 i.e. Superintendent was undisputedly competent to appoint and retire a person of the status of the respondent thereby to rectify the errors in the service record of a person and to make correct entries, therefore, he was competent to withdraw the premature retirement orders of the respondents and to direct them to continue in services till the attainment of actual ages of superannuation and this orders, had also attained the finality because it was acted upon. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad has further submitted that if it was so, even, in that case also, the suo motu orders, passed by appellant No.l were against the principle of natural justice because the respondents were not afforded opportunity of being heard. Further, he contended that the appellant No.2 i.e. Superintendent had earlier notified the retirement of the respondents on 10‑1‑1985, but, the said retirement could be affected both the respondents had applied to him for the revision on the basis of certain documents which were accepted by him and a revised order was issued on 30‑9‑1985 by which the dates of birth of the respondents were duly changed in all the relevant records including the service Books and so also this competent authority, after entertaining the representation of the respondents and the documents, even, after a lapse of 15/11 years, had also condoned the delay, therefore, the retirement of the respondents from their services was premature, illegal and mala fide. Considering all the legal and factual, position on record, I am of the view that the retirement of the respondents from their services was premature and not sustainable hence, liable to be set aside. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petitions of both these respondents.

6. For the reasons stated by above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. I would, therefore, dismiss both these appeals. Both the respondents are directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefit forthwith, till the attainment of the respective ages of superannuation as per entries in the Service Books, as ordered by appellant No.2, as above. M. Y. H./924/Lb.S?????? Appeals dismissed.