1988 PLP 86 (PLC)
GUL MUHAMMAD Versus ASSOCIATED CEMENT ROHRI CEMENT WORKS and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 86 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD Versus ASSOCIATED CEMENT ROHRI CEMENT WORKS and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 86 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 86 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 86 (PLC) (GUL MUHAMMAD Versus ASSOCIATED CEMENT ROHRI CEMENT WORKS and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Shabbir Ahmad Awan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 1987.
- 5. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment while none was present on behalf of the appellant. No intimation is received. I have carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant had been retired from the service of the respondent establishment and he had accepted all dues and benefits. In view of this admitted position, the appellant ceases to be aggrieved worker to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. I am fortified with a decision reported as Muhammad Siddique v. Premier Tobacco Industries Limited 1981 P L C 670 and also a decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the Judgment reported as Fateh Ali Chemical Works v. Majeed Baig 1973 P L C 297.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Retirement‑‑Appellant retired from service on attaining age of 50 years‑‑Appellant neither having declared his age nor having produced any other proof in support of his correct date of birth at time of his appointment, respondent‑establishment getting his age assessed by medical examination to be 30 years on 15‑10‑1955 to which appellant had not raised any objection‑‑National Identity Card showing appellant's date of birth as 12‑3‑1934 and his school leaving certificate showing it to be 2‑2‑1933‑‑Respondent‑establishment, held, had correctly retired the appellant from service and there was nothing wrong with impugned order. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Retirement‑‑Appellant having accepted all dues and benefits after retirement from service from respondent‑establishment, held, ceased to be an aggrieved worker to, invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court under S.25‑A. Muhammad Siddique v. Premier Tobacco Industries Limited 1981 P L C 670 and Fateh Ali Chemical Works v. Majeed Baig 1973 P L C 297 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Appellant. Shabbir Ahmad Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 17‑12‑1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that it was alleged by the appellant that though he had hardly attained the age of 50 years yet he was wrongly, unlawfully and prematurely retired from service by the respondent establishment. Being aggrieved with this action of the respondent establishment, the appellant filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant was originally appointed as Mazdoor and at that time he did not declare his age nor produced any other proof in support of his correct date of birth, therefore, he was medically examined by the works Medical Officer who assessed his age to be 30 years on 15‑10‑1955, and this determination of age was finally conveyed to the appellant on 12‑12‑1955 and at that he did not object to it. The respondent further claimed that as no rights have been infringed, therefore, the appellant cannot maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment while none was present on behalf of the appellant. No intimation is received. I have carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant had been retired from the service of the respondent establishment and he had accepted all dues and benefits. In view of this admitted position, the appellant ceases to be aggrieved worker to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. I am fortified with a decision reported as Muhammad Siddique v. Premier Tobacco Industries Limited 1981 P L C 670 and also a decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the Judgment reported as Fateh Ali Chemical Works v. Majeed Baig 1973 P L C 297.
6. It is an admitted position that at the time of entry into service, the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the date of birth. However; in the National Identity Card the appellant had shown his date of birth as 12‑3‑1934 while in the School Leaving Certificate, it was mentioned as, 2‑2‑1933. The authorities relied upon by the appellant were distinguishable. In view of the legal, and factual position of the case, I would hold that the respondent establishment had correctly retired the appellant from the service and there is nothing wrong with the impugned order.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. S.Q./1020/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.