1990 PLP 633 (PLC)

Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, IVth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 27‑9‑1989, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Representative for the appellant and Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. The appellant was admittedly working as a workman with the respondents. He was first retired on 12‑12‑1985 on reaching the age of 55 years. This retirement order was challenged in the learned Labour Court. The order was set aside by the Labour Court. While discussing the case, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion, that Government had fixed retirement age of the employees of Corporation and Autonomous Body as 60 years and as the respondent was a Corporation, the retirement age of the appellant as its employee was 60 years. It was further held that in particular case if the age was calculated from the year 1928 upto December, 1985 it would be less than 60 years and, therefore, held the retirement of appellant to be premature. The retirement order was, therefore, set aside. This order of the learned Labour Court was upheld by this Tribunal.

4. The dispute appears to be as to date of birth of the appellant. In the application for appointment, he had given year of birth as 1928 but had not given the date of birth. Subsequently, he produced National Identity Card which showed the year of his birth as 1938 and also produced a medical certificate in support to show that he was born on or about 1938. The learned Tribunal in appeal while discussing the evidence produced by the parties, with regard to the age of the appellant made the following observations: "There is nothing on record to show whether in case of a dispute over the age of the respondent, the appellant Corporation had either verified the authenticity of the documents as had been relied by the respondent; or he was asked to appear before a Medical Board to ascertain his correct age. It was the duty of the Corporation to take and maintain correct, uptodate and authentic service record of its all employees and it would not be proper for it to take decisions against an employee according to its own choice."

5. Admittedly, before his second retirement, the appellant was not referred to any Medical Board as suggested by this Tribunal. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro states, that the respondents had obtained the evidence of age of the appellant from other sources and also from the record of his Military service. Be that as it may, the appellant was admittedly not given any opportunity to be heard by the respondents before acting upon the alleged new evidence collected by them. Such an order is against the principles of natural justice. In view of the failure of the respondent to abide by the observation of the Tribunal and by the principles of natural justice, the order of the retirement is not sustainable.

6. I am constrained to remark, that the learned Labour Court appears to have misread the decision of this Tribunal. The remarks in the impugned order that "it appears that the Hon'ble Chairman on the said statement of learned representative of respondent has also held so without verifying it from the impugned decision of this Court" appear to be uncalled for and improper. It was absolutely improper and beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court to hold that its superior authority viz. Appellate Tribunal had come to a particular finding without verifying the record. The learned Presiding Officer is advised to refrain from commenting upon the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in future. The impugned order is set aside, the appellant is to be reinstated in service. The respondent may retire the appellant after ascertaining his age through Medical Board and after hearing the appellant. Under the circumstances of the case, I award the appellant 50% back benefits from the date of his second retirement. The order to be implemented within one month. M.Y.H./1689/Lb. S Order accordingly.