1986 PLP 683 (PLC(CS))
NAZAR DIN Versus PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
| Citation | 1986 PLP 683 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | NAZAR DIN Versus PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 683 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 683 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 683 (PLC(CS)) (NAZAR DIN Versus PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.
- Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Retirement‑‑Date of birth entered in service record relied upon by employee and acted upon by employer, held, could not be disputed after retirement order on basis of such entry.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Retirement‑‑Date of birth entered in service record relied upon by employee and acted upon by employer, held, could not be disputed after retirement order on basis of such entry. Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant. Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th December, 1985. The decision, dated 28‑1‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant challenging his retirement from service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was retired, w.e.f. 22‑5‑1983, vide order, dated 24‑4‑1983. The date of birth of the appellant was entered in his service record as 10‑10‑1923. This date was taken from the Sirdar's certificate Exh. R. 1 produced by the appellant. After the order of retirement had been served upon the appellant, he produced school leaving certificate Exh.R. 3, wherein the date of his birth is given as 8‑3‑1925. Since earlier the appellant had relied upon Sirdar's certificate Exh.R. 1 and the respondent acting upon it entered the date of birth in the service record accordingly the appellant could not change his position after the order of the retirement had been served. If he had produced EXh. R. 3 when still the question of his retirement was under consideration and order, dated 24‑4‑1983 had not been passed, the respondent may have considered it. So, the date of birth of the appellant was rightly taken as 10‑10‑1923. But the respondent retired the appellant, w.e.f. 22‑5‑1983 and not 9‑10‑1983. To this extent the order of retirement is wrong.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the grievance petition is partly accepted directing that the appellant be deemed to have been retired, w.e.f. 9‑10‑1983 instead of 22‑5‑1983 and wages for the period from 22‑5‑1983 to 9‑10‑1983 should be paid to him. A. E. Appeal partly accepted,