Pakistan Case LawMESSRS TRAILER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. Versus SYED MIAN BROTHER
This appeal arises from an order of the Sindh Labour Court No. III, Karachi, which allowed the respondent's grievance petition against his premature retirement. The core legal question was whether the respondent had reached the age of superannuation, justifying his retirement, or if the employer's reliance on a specific service record entry was erroneous given conflicting documentary evidence. The Tribunal held that the employer's unilateral entry of 1926 in the service record could not prevail over multiple, authentic, and admitted documents—including the respondent's National Identity Card, passport, Mujahid Force certificate, and records maintained under the Employees Old Age Pension Ordinance, 1972—all of which corroborated 1930 as the year of birth. Consequently, the retirement was declared illegal. The appeal was dismissed in limine, and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The Tribunal established the principle that where service record entries regarding age are disputed, they cannot be relied upon when contradicted by strong, consistent, and authentic documentary evidence, particularly when the employer has previously acknowledged the correct date in official filings.
- Can an employer rely on a unilateral entry in a service record to determine the age of superannuation when it is contradicted by multiple official documents?
- Is a retirement order based on an incorrect date of birth legally sustainable?
- Does the Labour Court have the authority to order reinstatement with back benefits upon finding a retirement was premature?
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant /establishment against an impugned order, dated 2‑4‑1987, passed by Sind Labour Court No.II1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, namely, Syed Mian Brother, directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.
2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per claim of the respondent though he had not attained the age of superannuation, yet, he was retired from service on, 20‑7‑1986. Therefore, the respondent approached the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
3.The appellants establishment resisted the petitions by controvert the claims of the respondent and they had submitted that the date of birth of the respondent recorded in service particulars was 20‑7‑1926, so, after reaching the age of 60 years the respondent was correctly retired from service, hence he could not maintain the grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4.Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present.
5.I have heard Mr. A. T. Mahmood, the learned Advocate for the appellants establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceeding of the case. It is admitted on record that the respondent was previously working in Mujahid Force and according to the Certificate issued by it, the date of birth of the respondent was 26‑2‑1930. So much so the entries in the National Identity Card of the respondent corroborate the date of birth. Further, it is also an admitted position on the record that the same year of birth of the respondent is shown as 1930 in the passport of the respondent. The most important admitted and authentic proof of the date of birth of the respondent as 1930, is the record maintained under the Employees Old Age Pension Ordinance, 1972. Admittedly the respondent is an illiterate person. Therefore, the unilateral entries made in the service record of the respondent as in 1926 as against the above strong and unchallenged documentary evidence cannot be relied upon. The appellant establishment could not deny the fact that they had themselves admitted .the date of birth of the respondent 1‑1‑1930, when they had officially conveyed it to the Old Age Benefit Pension Institution. Thus, in view of the above admitted factual and legal position, the retirement from service of the respondent on 20‑7‑1986 was quite illegal and premature.
The retirement order is liable to be set aside. There is nothing incorrect to interfere with the well‑reasoned findings of the learned Labour Court.
6.For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. The respondent is directed to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits within fifteen days from the date of this decision.
S.Q. /1028/Lb.S
Appeal dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Ali Nawaz Budhani721 judgments