MUHAMMAD GHANI Versus ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY, HYDERABAD

DECISION

This is an appeal against the order, dated 16-1-1991 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad; whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. Admittedly the appellant was employed by the respondents in the year 1970 when in his Service Roll and Service Book, which have been produced as Annexures `A/1' and `A/2', the date of his birth has been shown as 4-11-1935. The appellant later on produced certain documents viz. School Leaving Certificate which is Annexure `A/3' and a Certificate of Union Council, Hisar Daggar, District Swat as Annexure `A/4' to the effect that his date of birth was 15-7-1936 and had requested the respondents to change the date of birth in his Service Book. On refusal of the respondents to change the date of birth, the appellant filed his grievance petition No. 59/87 before the learned Labour Court which was rejected by the learned Labour Court on 7-11-1987. Against this order, an Appeal No. HYD-446/1987 was filed which was decided by this Tribunal on 5-12-1988 and by consent of the parties, following order was passed:-

"The respondent to decide the question of date of birth of the appellant after giving him notice and an opportunity to lead evidence in this behalf, if he so desires, as to his date of birth/age." appearance, the Board was of the opinion that the age of the appellant was 60 years, therefore, the appellant was retired on 14-11-1989. Being aggrieved with this retirement order, the appellant served grievance notice upon the respondents and filed grievance application in the learned Labour Court which was dismissed.

5. The only question to be decided is as to what would be the date of birth of the appellant. Normally the date of birth as given by the workman at the time of joining service is accepted to be correct and the burden is then shifted upon the workman to prove that the date of birth was incorrect. The appellant relies upon the certificate of the School as well as the Certificate from the Union Council, Swat, dated 15-2-1987, Annexure `A/4'. The aforementioned letter of the Head Master has nullified the School Leaving Certificate, which is Annexure `R/15'. The Certificate of the Union Council is also not beyond suspicion. It has not been strictly and properly proved. It is not the copy of entry in the Record of Births and Deaths, but it is only a certificate issued by the Chairman. The appellant had also produced the Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad, dated 30-12-1987 as Annexure `A/5' in which his age is shown to be about 51 years. This certificate is also nullified by the report of the Medical Board, Annexure 'R/16, which is dated 8-11-1989. Thus, the only reliable evidence left on the record is the Service Roll and Service Book of the appellant prepared at the time of his Sentry in the employment of the respondents. The appellant, admittedly had also served in the Ordnance Depot as Driver. By letter, Annexure `R/5', dated 30-1-1982, the respondents had asked the Records Officer Ordnance Records, Malir Cantonment, Karachi, to intimate them the date of enrolment of the appellant in the Army, date of discharge from the Army and the age at the time of enrolment in the Army. This letter was replied to by OIC Ordnance Records; one Major Muhammad Anwar Alain, by letter, dated 17-2-1982 viz. Annexure 'R/6'. This letter shows that the appellant was enrolled on 14-11-1951 and was discharged on 15-8-1953/14-11-1966 and at the time of enrolment, he was 22 years old. Thus, according to this letter, the date of birth of the appellant would be 14-11-1929.

6. In view of the above discussion, the date of birth of the appellant had rightly been recorded in the Service Record to be November,1929 though there is some dispute if it was 4 th ? or 14 th . The appellant has been given benefit of doubt and was retired on ????????? 14-11-1989. He was not able to prove that he had not attained the age of 60 years on the above date. ? As such, the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected his grievance application. I see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

H.B.T./1945/LBs. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed. ????????????????????