AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, SUKKUR Versus MAHAR ZAMAN

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against an impugned order, dated 24‑11‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Wasi Dad Khan, under section 25‑A, I. 8.0.1969 in the following words: ‑

"Application is allowed to that extent"

Mr. Azmatullah Khan, th6 learned representative for the appellant Corporation has contended that in this appeal, this Tribunal has to decide the superannuation age of the respondent in view of the record, already produced by it before the learned Labour Court wherein the date of birth of the respondent was mentioned as 15‑9‑1926, whereas the respondent had produced a photostat copy from the Gazette, dated 24‑6‑1944, issued by the Government of United Province in India showing the date of birth of the respondent Wasi Dad as 12‑6‑1929.

3. The case of the respondent was that due to his sudden illness, he was admitted in Jinnah Hospital, where from he was shifted for treatment to the Chief Medical Officer K.T.C. and thereafter he was declared invalidated officer, sixty per cent disability. The age of superannuation i.e. 55 years on 29‑9‑1984, but he was prematurely retired by the K .T. C . six months before this date, hence he suffered a loss of six months.

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, as above hence this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation and Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent has argued that the meaning of the last sentence of the impugned order is that the respondent, Wasi Dad Khan is to be re‑instated in service with all benefits till a date when both the appellant Corporation and the respondent further come to a conclusion with regard to the determination of the date of birth of the respondent in view of the documents, produced by him. On the other hand Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation has submitted that even, if the date of birth of the respondent Le . 12‑6‑1929 is to be taken correct, then, too, the respondent has already attained the superannuation age of 55 years and as per rules of the K.T.C. his retirement was correct. I see no force in the arguments of Mr. Azmatullah Khan. In view of the documentary and other evidence brought on record and the connected circumstances of the case, I would order, as under: ‑

(i) As, the respondent, Wasi Dad Khan should have not been retired with effect from 17‑1‑1985;

(ii) The respondent was further invalidated sixty per cent disability by the Chief Medical Officer, K.T.C. and on this an action was taken which was wrong. Actually the respondent should A have been retired from service with effect from 7‑9‑1986, therefore, he is granted extension in service till this date;

(iii) The respondent shall be deemed to continue in the employment till 7‑9‑1986, thereafter he shall stand retired.

This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

A. E. /1060/Lb.S Order accordingly.