1995 PLP 619 (PLC(CS))
KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director‑General Versus GHULAM HAIDER KHAN
| Citation | 1995 PLP 619 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director‑General Versus GHULAM HAIDER KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 619 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 619 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 619 (PLC(CS)) (KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director‑General Versus GHULAM HAIDER KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Naziruddin Qazi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1995.
- The only point in this case, is regarding the date of superannuation of the respondent who was working as a tracer in the K.D.A. At the time of entry in service his date of birth mentioned in the service book was 24‑3‑1934. This entry was followed by the K.D.A. ‑and he continued to work as tracer uptil 23‑3‑1994. Thereafter, the K.D.A. suspected that his real date of birth which according to them was 16‑10‑1930 had been altered to 24‑3‑1934 but the burden now shifts upon the K.D.A. to prove that the original date of 16‑10‑1930 in the Service Book had been altered unnoticed to 24‑3‑1934. The respondent continued to remain in service beyond 60 years according to the altered date. The contention of the K.D.A. is that his service beyond 1990 should be treated as re‑employment. The learned Advocate has not been able to produce any contract of service or order of re‑employment after retirement of the respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑Age‑‑.Date of birth‑‑‑Alteration.‑‑Employer claimed that original date of birth of employee which in fact was 16‑10‑1930 had been altered in service book unnoticed by 24‑3‑1934‑‑‑Employer on basis of such alteration had stated that as according to original date of birth, employee was to retire in 1990, but due to such unnoticed alteration in date of birth he continued to work up to 1994, his service beyond 1990 should be treated as re‑employment‑‑‑Employer could not produce any contract or order of re‑employment after retirement of employee‑‑Burden was on employer to prove that original date of birth in service book of employee had been altered unnoticed, but employer could not produce proof of age of employee either in Court or in service book which was alleged to have been altered.‑‑Further, alteration in date of birth of employee, thus was not possible in absence of any other proof.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Age‑‑.Date of birth‑‑‑Alteration.‑‑Employer claimed that original date of birth of employee which in fact was 16‑10‑1930 had been altered in service book unnoticed by 24‑3‑1934‑‑‑Employer on basis of such alteration had stated that as according to original date of birth, employee was to retire in 1990, but due to such unnoticed alteration in date of birth he continued to work up to 1994, his service beyond 1990 should be treated as re‑employment‑‑‑Employer could not produce any contract or order of re‑employment after retirement of employee‑‑Burden was on employer to prove that original date of birth in service book of employee had been altered unnoticed, but employer could not produce proof of age of employee either in Court or in service book which was alleged to have been altered.‑‑Further, alteration in date of birth of employee, thus was not possible in absence of any other proof. Naziruddin Qazi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1995. Heard Mr. Naziruddin Qazi for the appellant K.DA. The only point in this case, is regarding the date of superannuation of the respondent who was working as a tracer in the K.D.A. At the time of entry in service his date of birth mentioned in the service book was 24‑3‑1934. This entry was followed by the K.D.A. ‑and he continued to work as tracer uptil 23‑3‑1994. Thereafter, the K.D.A. suspected that his real date of birth which according to them was 16‑10‑1930 had been altered to 24‑3‑1934 but the burden now shifts upon the K.D.A. to prove that the original date of 16‑10‑1930 in the Service Book had been altered unnoticed to 24‑3‑1934. The respondent continued to remain in service beyond 60 years according to the altered date. The contention of the K.D.A. is that his service beyond 1990 should be treated as re‑employment. The learned Advocate has not been able to produce any contract of service or order of re‑employment after retirement of the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant also admits, that no proof of age has been produced in the Labour Court or in the Service' Book which is alleged to have been altered. Under the circumstances further alteration in the date of birth of the respondent is not possible in the absence of any other proof. This appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2461/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.