Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS Respondent: KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONHonorable Justice Ali Nawaz Budhani
1988 P L C 412
1988 P L C 412
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]
Present: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ
Versus
KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Appeal No. KAR‑403 of 1985, heard on 28th October, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (%RIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Retirement‑‑Date of birth‑‑Identity card issued by employer establishment containing entry relating to date of birth‑‑Reliance on medical examination made after retirement in preference to entry in Identity card, held, was not proper‑‑Such retirement order was set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal with direction that workman be deemed to have retired from date as calculated on basis of entry in Identity Card with entitlement to full back benefits.
Latif Saghar for Appellant. Azmatullah Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th October, 1987.
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 5‑11‑1985 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.I, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be. a permanent driver of the Respondent having been appointed in Sind Road Transport Corporation in 1974 and on being creation of Karachi Transport Corporation, his services were transferred to it on 1‑2‑1977, wherein on 8‑1‑1974 he was issued an Identity Card showing his date of birth as 1930. The appellant further claimed that on 14‑7‑1984 he was only 54 years old, his services were terminated thereby prematurely retired without giving an opportunity of explaining the circumstances as to the controversy over his age. The appellant claimed that the document i.e. the Medical Certificate on which the date of his birth was determined carried no value in the presence of an admitted document of the respondent Corporation.
3. The respondent Corporation resisted, the petition on the ground that as the appellant was taken on the strength of the Karachi Transport Corporation on 1‑2‑1977 on the sane terms and conditions which were applicable at that time to the Sind Road Transport Corporation and so he had attained the age of superannuation, therefore, his retirement was quite correct and legal as per Retirement Rules. Thus, the appellant was not entitled to maintain his petition, which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross- examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate of the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent Corporation and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. There is an admitted position that the respondent Corporation has itself issued an Identity Card (personal Date for workers) of the appellant, dated 1‑2‑1978 in which his date 3f birth is clearly shown as 1930. The contentions of Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the respondent Corporation that the appellant had not submitted any document in support of his claim that his date of birth was 1930 at the time when the said Identity Card was filled in and had been issued to him, have no force. The appellant was medically examined much after his retirement. The respondent Corporation has failed to prove that the appellant was correctly retired from service in 1984 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 55 years. From this admitted document of Identity A Card the appellant was to retire from his service on 31‑12‑1985 on attaining the age of superannuation and not in the year 1984. Thus, the retirement of the appellant was quite premature and illegal liable to be set aside.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The appellant is directed to be deemed to have been retired from the service of the respondent Corporation on 31‑12‑1985 instead of 1984, after attaining his correct age of superannuation. The appellant is also directed to be paid his full back benefits upto 31‑12‑1985 forthwith.
A.E. /1120/Lb.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.