ZIARAT SHAH Versus JOHNSON & PHILLIPS (PAKISTAN) LIMITED, KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal from the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. arises in the following circumstances:‑

The appellant was working as a conductor with the Sindh Road Tr4nsport Corporation and his services came to be transferred to the Karachi Transport Corporation which was created in 1977. On the 26th of November; 1989 he came to be retired as he had reached the age of superannuation. He had sent a grievance notice but receiving no reply from the respondent filed the petition before the Labour Court.

2. In the Written Reply filed by the respondent it was alleged that his date of birth was 1928 and he had himself given an application for L.P.R. It was thereafter that the quest for gaining time seized him, and he fabricated false documents putting forward 1933 as his date of birth as against 1928.

3. The petitioner was his own witness while the District Manager, namely Amir Hussain Mughal appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The petitioner during the proceedings produced documents, m the shape of School Leaving Certificate from Khushangabad and a Smallpox Vaccination Certificate apart from an Identity Card of a later Vintage, and a bio‑data prepared by himself. However, it is hardly necessary to go into what has been attempted to be done by the appellant to improve upon his own case.

5. On his own showing in the National Identity Card which was obtained in 1974, his date of birth will work out to 1928, as is to be seen on the reverse side thereof. The exact date of birth has not been mentioned, but it has been specified, that in the year in question he was 45 years of age. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the date on the Identity Card is given by the card holder himself. There is no verification or challenge and it is an act of deliberate choice.

6. And if the appellant had himself mentioned the date of birth as 1928 therein and he carried it for years together there must be something very tangible to indicate that an inadvertent mistake had earlier occurred. There is not the faintest attempt discernible that way. The later Identity Card procured by him is obviously with an eye to gain additional years of useful employment, He had already crossed the age of 60 when he was ordered to retire. In his heart of hearts he was aware of all this and it was because of this that he had asked for L.P.R., which was granted. He cannot be allowed to wriggle out from that situation, as it is an afterthought and a mere tissue of lies.

7. The petition was properly dismissed and I will dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2103/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.