MAROOF KHAN Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD

DECISION

This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances:‑‑

The appellant having retired from the Army, joined the West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation as a bus conductor on 14‑7‑1969. On the dissolution of the One Unit, the services of the appellant were transferred to Sindh Road Transport Corporation with effect from 1‑7‑1970.

2. At the time of employment with the respondent, the appellant had given his year of birth as 1935. For reasons which are not very clearly brought on the record, the respondents decided to verify the date with the Army authorities and were informed that his age on their record stood as 22‑10‑1932. Having received this letter the appellant was retired from service on 3‑2‑1990 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was also given certain benefits which were open to him.

3. It is alleged that the appellant had filed a departmental appeal against this order of retirement on 28‑2‑1990 and learnt on 3‑5‑1990 that the same has been rejected. He had therefore filed a grievance notice on 12‑6‑1990 and receiving no reply had filed the petition before the learned Labour Court.

4. The allegation came to be denied in the Written Reply filed by the respondents; there was a clear denial therein about the filing of any departmental appeal. It went on to say that since he had been retired from 3‑2‑1990 and the grievance notice had been given on 12‑6‑1990 the petition was time‑barred and was liable to be dismissed.

5. The appellant was his own witness. He had‑also made an application for summoning of one Choudhry Javed who was to bring the register of departmental appeals. However, Ch. Javed was on long leave and the respondent had sent one Haider Abbas alongwith the requisite record. He was given up and the appellant insisted about the attendance of Ch. Jabbar who was not available. Amir Hussain Mughal the District Manager was the witness on behalf of the respondent.

6. The learned Presiding Officer found that the petition was time‑barred and also devoid of any merit. Hence this appeal.

7. The case of the appellant is that he had filed a departmental appeal but in his cross‑examination all he had to say was that he had handed over the same to a clerk of the Managing Director, adding "however I do not have any proof that I had delivered my said appeal to the clerk of the M.D." The appeal was to be filed within one month of the order and he could not even say whether it was done within the said time.

8. The presentation of the appeal was categorically denied by the respondents in the Written Reply and the same stand was maintained in the cross‑examination of Amir Hussain Mughal. The record of the departmental appeal had been sent by the respondent with all the registers through Haider Abbas who, in the absence of Ch. Jabbar on long leave but he was given up.

9. Obviously the assertion of the appellant is rather tendous and without any support from any quarters. It might as well be mentioned that even in this grievance notice he had never communicated the name of Ch. Javed and therefore his insistence about his personal presence is rather intriguing. I am satisfied that the appeal as found by the learned Presiding Officer was time barred.

10. The appellant had belonged to the defence services and there was no question of not knowing the proper date of birth. However, he tried to convey that he had given the wrong date to the army authorities in his anxiety for obtaining the job. The less said about this statement the better it would be. The National Identity Card came in vogue since 1973‑74 and anybody can mention his date of birth as he or she likes. It could never be conclusive and in the circumstances of the case the stand will be difficult to maintain. I had asked the appellant whether he was prepared to face the evidence from the army quarters before this Tribunal, and the answer was in the negative. It is true that a few months still remained for superannuation, but nothing can be done about it, as the appeal is barred by limitation.

I will therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2083/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.