1989 PLP 618 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FAISALABAD Versus HAFEEZULLAH NIAZI
| Citation | 1989 PLP 618 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhamrnad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FAISALABAD Versus HAFEEZULLAH NIAZI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 618 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 618 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhamrnad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 618 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FAISALABAD Versus HAFEEZULLAH NIAZI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sajjad Hussain for Appellant.
- MA.Javed for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Age, determination of‑‑Medical certificate‑‑Opinion based upon general appearance has no evidentiary value in presence of opinion based upon X‑ray reports.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Age, determination of‑‑Medical certificate‑‑Opinion based upon general appearance has no evidentiary value in presence of opinion based upon X‑ray reports. Syed Sajjad Hussain for Appellant. MA.Javed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1988. The appeal captioned above merges from the decision dated 29‑6‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts are that the respondent was retired by order dated 21‑6‑1986. The respondent was got medically examined and the doctor issued two certificates bearing the same date. The first medical certificate is Exh.P-2 in which the doctor assessed the age of the respondent as fifty‑one years. On the same date, he issued another certificate Exh. R‑4 giving the age as 58 years. In Exh.R‑4 it is mentioned that the respondent was got X‑rayed but in Exh.P‑2 there is no such indication. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since certificate Ex.P‑2 issued by the doctor is based upon general appearance it has no evidentiary value and that since the opinion expressed in certificate R‑4 is based upon the X‑ray reports, therefore, the learned lower Court erred in not relying upon it. In medical certificates the signatures or thumb impressions of the persons examined are received and mark of identification is also mentioned. P‑2 bears the signatures of the respondent but R‑4 does not carry his signatures. The respondent disowned this certificate. No X‑ray report or copy of the X‑ray is attached to R‑4 it, therefore, cannot be said that it relates to the respondent. According to P‑2 retirement of the respondent would become due on 17‑5‑1995. Ex.R‑1 is the service record of the respondent which admittedly bears his signatures. In this document his year of birth is given as 1937 and according to this document the year of superannuation would be 1997. Since the respondent claims that his age was 51 years according to the medical certificate and does not rely upon R‑1, so his date of retirement is 17‑5‑1995. The learned lower Court has thus rightly decided the case.
3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./624/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.