1995 PLP 620 (PLC(CS))
MUMTAZ KHAN Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. 5, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 620 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUMTAZ KHAN Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. 5, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 620 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 620 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 620 (PLC(CS)) (MUMTAZ KHAN Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. 5, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saleem Khan for Appellant.
- Izat Puri for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Retirement‑‑‑Age‑‑‑Date of birth‑‑‑Alteration‑‑‑Employee applied for alteration of his date of birth as entered in his service record at the time when he was about to retire‑‑‑In proof of his new date of birth employee produced birth certificate and Primary School Leaving Certificate from India‑‑‑Both documents produced by employee in proof of his different date of birth were not authentic as they neither bore signature of Head of School nor were attested by Ministry of Foreign Affairs‑‑‑Documents produced by employee .in proof of his date of birth different to the date of birth as entered in his service record being unreliable, Labour Court rightly found that date of birth of employee as entered in his service record could not be altered on basis of those documents.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Retirement‑‑‑Age‑‑‑Date of birth‑‑‑Alteration‑‑‑Employee applied for alteration of his date of birth as entered in his service record at the time when he was about to retire‑‑‑In proof of his new date of birth employee produced birth certificate and Primary School Leaving Certificate from India‑‑‑Both documents produced by employee in proof of his different date of birth were not authentic as they neither bore signature of Head of School nor were attested by Ministry of Foreign Affairs‑‑‑Documents produced by employee .in proof of his date of birth different to the date of birth as entered in his service record being unreliable, Labour Court rightly found that date of birth of employee as entered in his service record could not be altered on basis of those documents. M. Saleem Khan for Appellant. Izat Puri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1995. Appellant Mumtaz Khan was initially appointed as a coolie in the K.E.S.C. Head Office, Karachi. He served up to 13‑1‑1992 after which he was retired. At the time of retirement he was a Senior Supervisor. At the time of appointment his date of birth entered in the Service Book was 13=1‑1932. As claimed by him he came to know in 1985 that his date of birth as entered in his Service Record was not correct, and he was actually born on 11th May, 1936. He therefore applied for alteration of his date of birth on 23‑4‑1985 but received no reply. He says that he has given Birth Certificate and Primary School Leaving Certificate to the management. That he received the Certificates from India. The appellant was retired on 13‑1‑1992 but before his retirement he had been informed about his date of retirement by letter dated 22‑8‑1991. He served the K.E.S.C. with his grievance notice only after his retirement and not when he applied for alteration of his date of birth and his request was not granted. In support of his contention the appellant has produced Birth Certificate and Primary School Leaving Certificate from India. The Birth Certificate shows the date of birth to be 11th May, 1936 and the date of the registration of birth as 2nd May, 1936, as if his impending birth was registered even before his arrival. The other School Leaving Certificate does not appear to be authentic as it does not bear the signature of the Head of the School nor is it attested by the Ministry of‑ Foreign Affairs. Both these documents are unreliable. The Labour Court accordingly held that the date of birth could not be altered on the basis of such documents. I also find that there is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./2460/Lb.S Appeal dismissed