1998 PLP 145 (PLC)

Abdul Rehman Butt for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1997. This appeal arises from the judgment of Labour Court No. 1, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Siddiq Mistry was allowed and his date of birth was altered according to the Birth Certificate produced by him for more than 10 years.

2. Respondent Muhammad Siddiq was appointed as Mazdoor or worker in the Port Trust Chief Engineer's Department on 5th September, 1961. He was sent for medical examination as usual to the Chief Medical Officer, Karachi Port Trust who certified that according to the statement of the employee his age was 25 years but by appearance he was 30 years of age. The respondent was then informed in writing regarding his age being 30 years on 5-9-1961 and he was advised that if he desired to represent against it he must do so within a period of three months with proper documentary evidence. The respondent did not protest nor object to his age being thirty at the time of appointment and he did not produce any Birth Certificate. After 30 years when he attained the age of 60 years he was served with a notice regarding his superannuation. He then made an application for alteration of his age to the Assistant Executive Engineer, K.P.T. He produced a Birth Certificate of Mandhra Union Council, Tehsil Gujjar Khan Taluka, Rawalpindi showing his date of birth to be 15-4-1942 as against 5-9-1931 recorded in his Service Book. The K.P.T. rejected his request for alteration as being time-barred in view of the notice served on him. He gave grievance notice to the K.P.T. and made a grievance petition before the 1st Sindh Labour Court. The learned Labour Court found that there was no bar of limitation regarding age and since evidence of age had been produced the date of birth in the record of the K.P.T. was directed to be altered according to that age in the Birth Certificate. The appellant K.P.T. did not retire the respondent but preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. The respondent, thus, continued in service for seven years more and even according to his altered age he has only five years further to serve. The respondent is present in Court and by appearance he is about 65 years of age.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Abdul Rehman Butt for the K.P.T. that after giving grievance notice the respondent did not file his petition before the Labour Court within the time allowed under section 25-A of the I.R.O. but his petition was time-barred by about 22 days. He has next shown the Birth Certificate from Mandhra obtained at the time of retirement to be belated and shown his doubt regarding the Certificate being genuine. According to the Certificate the place of birth was Dhok Mandrian Dadly Sobhari Bhaiyan. This entry was made at the instance of the Chowkidar Sabhari Bhaiyan seven days after the birth of a son to Farman Ali and the name of the son has also been mentioned as Muhammad Siddiq. The name of the midwife, the number of children of Farman Ali columns have been left blank. Ordinarily it is the midwife who is duty bound to get the entry made in the Birth Register and not the Chowkidar. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for the respondent has, however, argued in reply that the entry in the Birth Register has not been disputed by the K.P.T. That they only rely on the plea of time-barred. The learned Advocate has quoted 1989 SCMR 704 Muhammad Aslam and another v. Mst. Sardar Begum. It was held in this decision that Municipal Register of Births and Deaths being public record, certified copies of entries would be admissible in evidence. That age of a person can be proved by production of certified copy of relevant entry of Register of Births and Deaths. Court was bound to presume that such certified copy was genuine. This presumption has not been rebutted .by production of any other evidence.

4. In this case the respondent was informed about his age as determined by the Medical Officer but he took no objection nor did he produce any other evidence of age. He remained in service for about 30 years. Thereafter, when notice of superannuation was given to him he produced the Birth Certificate from the village Union Council. He could have obtained the Certificate even at the time of appointment but he did not care to do so. By appearance the respondent is an old man of at least 65 years and it is hard to consider him to be of 55 years as stated in the Birth Certificate. I am not, therefore, convinced regarding entry in the Birth Certificate and I do not consider this evidence to be sufficient for preference as against the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer. Ten years' difference in age can very easily be ascertained by proper medical examination. I, therefore, direct that the K.P.T. may get the respondent re-examined as to age by a Medical Board and the decision of the Board should determine the actual age of the respondent. 5.? The appeal is disposed of in terms of this order. H.B.T./237/Lb.S.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.