1996 PLP 95 (PLC)

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑"Workman"‑‑‑Question of age‑‑‑Workman merely,, relying upon National Identity Card in proof of his age‑‑‑Labour forums allowed petitioner to have workman medically examined in order to determine his approximate date of birth on basis of which he could be retired from service‑‑‑Impugned order, thus, appeared to be just, fair and lawful‑‑‑No interference was called for in such decision. Arif Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th September, 1995. WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J: ‑‑

1. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions.

2. The facts of the case need not be enumerated as such are appropriately detailed in the two impugned orders. As to the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal, it is contended that the respondent No.1 was not worker at all and, therefore, his case did not fall within the preview of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The contention was rejected by the Labour Court and has found no mention whatever in the decision of the Tribunal, the inference being that the point was not argued there. If such was duly urged and for some reason not dealt with in the impugned decision there was nothing to preclude the petitioner from seeking due clarification. That this was not done implies that the question was never raised at the hearing even though it may have figured in the memo of appeal, as claimed before us. The matter being the purely of fact, we are not inclined to entertain it at this stage more so because no miscarriage of justice is shown to have resulted there from. A Next contention of the learned counsel is that in spite of a settlement between the management and the Union, the respondent No.1 did not provide any proof of his age, apart from the National Identity Card. It is correct that the entry, as to age, in the National, Identity Card is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration in reckoning age and may not be conclusive in the given circumstances of a case. However, additional material was already available with the petitioner in the shape of a medical certificate, secured at the petitioners' own instance, on the basis of which the management was poised to retire the respondent No.1, when that respondent approached the Labour 6 Court. Such certificate was also relevant and could be relied upon but the petitioner‑management lost or irretrievably misplaced it. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining the age of respondent No.1, the Courts in the labour jurisdiction were right in allowing the petitioner to have the respondent No.1 medically examined again in order to determine his approximate date of birth on the basis of which he could be retired from the petitioner's service. The impugned orders, thus, appear to be just, fair and lawful. No interference is called for. Dismissed. AA./T‑175/K Petition dismissed.