KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI Versus FAQIR HUSSAIN

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dated 10‑10‑1992 by which the petitioner was reinstated in service. It arose in the following circumstances:‑‑

2. It is alleged that in 1950 the petitioner had found employment with the K.E.S.C. as a Cooli and had been in due course appointed as a lineman. On 5‑11‑1990 he received a letter from the respondent informing him that he would be reaching the age of superannuation on the 8th of December, 1990 and therefore he should return all the kits and instruments in time to enable him to collect his outstanding retirement dues. It appears that the petitioner had protested about the entry of his age on the record of the company and he had started collecting data including his Birth Certificate from the Municipal Registration Office, Attock from where he hails and after serving due notice on the 5th January filed the petition. The petition came to be resisted on a' number of grounds including the bar of time.

3. The petitioner apart from himself examined SA. Khan, a clerk of the District Registration Office who had brought the original record in respect of National Identity Card and Shafiq Ahmed the Accountant of the District Health Office, Attock who had brought the original Register and record of the Birth Certificate where his date of birth was shown as 16‑11‑1937.

4. The respondent had filed the affidavit‑in‑evidence of one Muhammad Afsar Khan, Assistant Administrative Officer, but as he was not made available for cross‑examination there is no evidence to controvert the petitioner's version at all.

5. It is true that the original application for employment bears the left thumb‑impression of the respondent. The date of his birth therein is 8‑12‑1930. He is an illiterate man. It is also to be seen that he had made no, application for the correction of the record. He says he was not made aware of these facilities. However, the Identity Card of the department itself shows a different date, being 2‑2‑1935. The existence of this document is beyond reproach has not been explained away.

6. Then there is the evidence which has been furnished by the Accountant referred to earlier who had been summoned as a witness from Attock. He had brought the Birth Register including the birth extract of the petitioner who is mentioned by name. There is nothing worth while elicited from him in cross‑examination. His evidence was acted upon by the .learned Presiding Officer. Nothing smacks of make‑believe therein. The documents were produced from proper quarters and there is no suggestion of any interpolation or forgery. There is therefore no reason to doubt the words of the petitioner that he had joined as a coolie and at a tender age and that his date of birth is 16‑11‑1937. He was therefore below 60, when his retirement was brought about. He has still a number of years to serve as he will be attaining the age of 60, on 15‑11‑1997.

7. Even the award of the back benefits will not be open to exception in view of the principles laid down in National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 105.

8. In the result the appeal stands dismissed.

H.B.T./2190/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.