1995 PLP 172 (PLC)

Siddique Mirza for Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Applicants. Syed Iftikhar Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th December, 1994. This Revision Application under section 38(3) of I.R.O., 1969, is directed against the order of Sindh Labour Court No. VIII, Larkana, whereby the impugned order of the petitioners for retirement of the respondent from service was stayed pending the disposal of an application under section 25‑A of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The facts which are hardly disputed are that the respondent one Allah Bux s/o Muhammad Punjal was appointed as Lineman in the T and T Department at Larkana on 1‑12‑1964. Since he was illiterate and had no idea of his date of birth he was sent for Medical Examination. The Civil Surgeon, Larkana, on 3‑12‑1965 certified his age to be 25 years. This date of birth was accepted and no queries were made. The date was recorded in his Service Book as 5‑i1‑1939. This was also the date which was entered in his National Identity Card. Suddenly, after lapse of about twenty years, on 30‑6‑1994 the respondent received an order, dated 29‑6‑1994 altering his date of birth and directing his retirement on 16‑8‑1987 on attaining sixty years of age with retrospective effect. This order was passed on the ground that in the original application for appointment the date of birth of the respondent was mentioned to be 15 years earlier. Further to regularise his initial appointment an order was passed, dated 10‑1‑1985, mentioning his date of birth as 16‑8‑1927, his appointment as on 1‑12‑1964 and period of relaxation of age 15 years 3 months and 12 days. Thus for an appointment made in the year 1964 the age was relaxed in the year 1985 and the respondent was retired with effect from 16‑8‑1987. The petitioners have not produced the original application for appointment of the respondent but they have relied upon an affidavit of Dilawar Hussain, Engineering Supervisor Telephones, Larkana stating that he had read the application of the respondent for appointment in the year 1964 and the date of birth mentioned in it was 16‑8‑1927. This evidence has been produced without even mentioning that the original application has been lost or destroyed.

3. The Medical opinion as to the age is always considered reliable as the margin of error in such a case can at the most be about 2 years. There is also nothing on record to show that any show‑cause notice was issued to the respondent by the authorities before altering his age to his disadvantage after a period of 30 years. The order is passed in the year 1994 with retrospective effect retiring the respondent from 1987 while he was actually working all this time. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Labour Court that prima facie this order is against the principles of natural justice. I, accordingly cannot see any reason for interference with Interim Stay of such an order pending Final Decision by the Labour Court. This Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed and the order of suspension of the Interim Stay granted by this Court earlier stands vacated. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. H.B.T./2396/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Revision dismissed.