1989 PLP 902 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR ITTEHAD CHEMICALS
| Citation | 1989 PLP 902 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR ITTEHAD CHEMICALS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 902 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 902 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 902 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR ITTEHAD CHEMICALS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asghar Khadim for Appellant.
- Muhammad Azam for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Age‑‑Medical evidence about age was always approximate and could be accepted if no evidence with regard to date of birth or in shape of School Leaving Certificate was available. (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Retirement‑‑Employee challenged his retirement on grouted that he had not yet reached age of superannuation‑‑Employee produced copy of birth entry which was issued on basis of information about date of birth given by employee himself and bearing his signatures‑‑When employee joined service there was no dispute between parties with regard to date of his birth‑‑Held, date of birth entered in record when employee joined service was correct‑‑Order dismissing grievance petition of employee upheld.
Judgment & Decree
The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision dated 5‑6‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.
2. The appellant had in his grievance petition challenged the order of his retirement on the ground that he had not yet reached the age of superannuation After retirement he got himself medically examined and the medical report is that according to the X‑rays, his age ways between 55 and 60 years. It was further said that there was a margin of two years and thus the age of the appellant could be between 57 and 00 years. The medical evidence about age is always approximate and this kind of evidence can be accepted if no evidence with regard to the date of birth or in the shape of school‑leaving certificate is available. No doubt, in the present case the appellant produced copy of his birth entry Exh. P.3 but the learned lower Court has rightly discarded the same because although in the said document the date of birth is given as 9‑1‑1931, according to which, the date of superannuation of the appellant would be 8‑1‑1991 but the appellant got his birth entered on 8‑1‑1987. The respondent in the learned lower Court relied upon the application of the appellant for service, in which the date of birth is given as 1‑8‑1927. The document is Exh. R.I. It bears the signatures of the appellant. In such applications the date of birth is entered according to the information given by the person applying for service. Since Exh. R. 1 bears the signatures of the I appellant, it means that the date of birth was given in it according to the information given by him. Since at the time the appellant joined service, there was no dispute between the parties with regard to the date of his birth, therefore, the one given in Exh. R.1 is correct and was rightly relied upon by the respondent as well as by the learned lower Court. In these circumstances, the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly disallowed.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./567/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.