ABDUL RAZZAQ Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST through General Manager/Administration
ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER.--- The appellant has challenged order, dated 21st April, 2016, of the Sindh Labour Court No.05, Karachi, dismissing his grievance Application No.01 of 2016 (old No.12 of 2015), for directing the respondents to change the date of his birth from 18th February, 1955 (wrongly mentioned as 18th February, 1960) to 18th February 1963, setting aside his retirement and directing them to reinstate him in service with back benefits.
2. Briefly, the facts are that after availing option of encashment of leave preparatory to retirement, the appellant retired as lascar on 18th February, 2015. On 20th May, 2015, he filed the application in the labour court contending that his actual date of birth was 18th February, 1963 and the respondents had wrongly retired him on 18th February, 2015 on the basis of his incorrect date of birth i.e. 18th February, 1955 mentioned in the record of his service.
3. In their written reply/para-wise comments, the respondents denied the claim of the appellant and contended that on the basis of his fitness certificate issued by their Chief Medical Officer on 18th February, 1981, the date of his birth was mentioned in the letter of his appointment as 18th February, 1955, with a clear warning that in case he had any objection to it he could make representation within three months, whereafter no representation would be accepted. They further contended that the applicant did not make the representation and retired on 18th February, 2015, after availing option of encashment of leave preparatory to retirement. According to them, the claim of the appellant was frivolous and time-barred.
4. The appellant examined himself; while the respondents examined their Assistant Manager H.R, Talha Mansoor. The Labour Court dismissed the application as meritless.
5. The order of the labour court is based on reason and correct appreciation of facts and law and is, therefore, unexceptionable. On the basis of his fitness certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the date of his birth was mentioned in the letter of his appointment, with clear warning that no representation regarding change of date of his birth would be accepted after expiry of three mouths. The appellant admitted that the letter of appointment was issued to him and that at the time of appointment he was examined by the Chief Medical Officer. The fitness certificate of the appellant and the letter of his appointment, both issued in 1981, mentioned the date of his birth as 18th February, 1955. Despite the warning, the appellant did not apply for any change in the date of birth for more than 14 years and in this way accepted the date entered into the record of his service. It was on 12th June, 1995, when he, for the first time, moved application for changing his date of birth. The respondents did not accept his request and he did not opt for a legal remedy. On 07th October, 2012, he again moved application for changing the date, but his request was rejected. The respondents informed him about the rejection of his request through a letter dated 06th June, 2013, received by the appellant on 08th June, 2013. The appellant, instead of challenging rejection of his application, opted for encashment of leave preparatory to retirement from 18th February, 2014 to 17th February, 2015, by moving such application and giving undertaking in writing that he would perform duty during whole period of the leave. He retired on 18th February, 2015 in the forenoon and after three months of his retirement he filed application in the labour court for changing his date of birth is his service record.
6. At the time of his appointment in 1981, the Chief Medical Officer of the respondents had determined age of the appellant as 26 years as against his own declaration of 23 years. The difference was only of three years. In his computerized national identity card (CNIC), his date of birth is mentioned as 1957, showing the difference of only two year. Now, on the basis of photostat copy of a certificate issued by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC), he claims difference of eight years. The initial version of the appellant that at the time of his appointment he was 23 years old and the Chief Medical Officer had wrongly determined his age as 26 years (which he reiterated in his affidavit-in-evidence) and his CNIC, showing the date of his birth as 1957, makes the inadmissible photostat copy of the KMC certificate highly doubtful. No reliance can be made on it at this belated stage in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Law doesn't permit a worker to seek change of date of birth in service record after or near retirement. There is statutory limit of time provided under section 34 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013. It requires that grievance notice shall be given within three months of the date on which the cause of grievance arises and a worker can take the matter to the Labour Court within 60 days from communication of employer's decision or within 60 days from expiry of 15 days after brining the grievance to the notice of the employer. The repealed Industrial Relations Acts/Ordinances also contained similar provisions. Thus, grievance has to be taken to the Labour Court within the period prescribed by the law and not at anytime at the sweet will of a worker.
8. The practice on the part of employees to apply for changing their date of birth near the end of their career has increased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has deprecated such practice in the cases of Dr. Shamim Waheed (2008 PLC (C.S.) 192), Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch (2014 SCMR 1723) and Mehr Khan (1998 SCMR 613). In all the cases salaries paid to the employees for the period they performed duty beyond the date of their retirement, even on the strength of interim order of a court, was directed to be recovered from them. In Qamaruddin's case (2007 SCMR 66), the practice was directed to be 'discouraged and effectively curbed'. In the case of Shahid Ahmed v. Oil and Gas Development Company Limited , reported in (2015 PLC (C.S.) 267) Supreme Court, an employee of the company was not allowed to change date of his birth inspite of the fact that there was no specific statutory rule prohibiting it.
9. In view of the above facts, circumstances and reasons, it is clear that the grievance of the appellant was meritless and hopelessly time-barred and the labour court rightly dismissed his application. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
MQ/42/SLT Appeal dismissed.