1991 PLP C739 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1990. This Revision Application is directed against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. III, Karachi, dated 19-12-1990, which he passed as link Judge as the Presiding Officer, Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, has proceeded on long leave.

2. I have heard Mr. Shamshuddin Khalid, learned Advocate for the applicant and have also gone through the record of the case.

3. The brief facts of the case, are, that the applicant was employed by the respondents in the year 1964. It is alleged that at the time of entry in service he gave his year of birth as 1930, which was entered in his service record. It is further alleged that the respondents in 1969 asked all the employees to confirm their date of birth and the applicant again confirmed his year of birth as 1930. Admittedly the age of retirement in the respondents' establishment is 58 years. As the exact date of birth was not given by the applicant therefore he was superannuated on last working day of the year 1988 viz. on 30-12-1988 but he was given one year's extension twice from 1-1-1989 and from 1-1-1990 which extension is expiring on 30th of December of this year. On 26-2-1989 the applicant moved an application to the respondents for correction the date of his birth as 17-2-1933 basing his claim on the photo copy of National Identity Card, photo copy of birth certificate obtained from Municipal Commissioner, Farrukhabad, India, passport and age certificate from Civil Surgeon issued on 23-2-1989,

4. The learned Labour Court mainly considered the facts that his year of birth given at the time of service in 1964 was 1930, which was confirmed by him in 1969 and that after two extensions each for one year, he could not agitate the B correctness of his age, as the documents relied upon by the applicant are of much later period. In his opinion no prima facie case for grant of interim stay was made out.

5. Mr. Shamshuddin Khalid has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Aslam and another v. Mst. Sardar Begum alias Noor Nishan, reported in 1989 S C M R 704, wherein it is held that certified copy of the birth register, which is a public document was admissible and the Court was bound to presume that such certified copy-was genuine. It may be pointed, that no certified copy of birth register has been C produced in the instant case, but only a certificate purporting to bear signature of Municipal Commissioner is produced, which only certified that date of birth of the applicant as entered in the birth register was 17th February, 1933. No presumption is attached to such certificate, which is to be proved in accordance with law and rules. I need not discuss the case on merits because the matter is still pending in the learned Labour Court and if the applicant is able to prove his date of birth, as claimed by him he can be reinstated with full back benefits.

6. Mr. Shamshuddin Khalid has also pointed that in the Identity Card, issued in 1979, the date of birth is shown as 17-2-1933 and this card was with the respondents since then. However this age of birth also appears to have been given by the applicant himself and it is of much later date. All these documents and evidence relied by the applicant would be considered by the learned Labour Court, while passing the final order. The impugned interlocutory order of the learned Labour Court is well-reasoned and prima facie, in circumstances of the case appears to be correct. I see no reason to interfere with the order. The Revision application is therefore, dismissed. M.Y.H./1825/Lb.S Petition dismissed.