' BASHIR AHMED MEMON, (MEMBER).---The petitioner named above has brought this petition under section 25 (8)(g) of IRA, 2008 and along with it has filed application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 for interim relief.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has challenged his date of birth entered by the respondent's management in their record and according to petitioner said date of birth has been wrongly entered by way of unfair labour practice.
3. While admitting the petition notice was issued to the respondents for their comments and counter affidavit. The respondents have filed their reply statement with preliminary legal objections on main petition as well as on stay application. The respondents have asserted that at the time of his appointment the petitioner has produced Matriculation Certificate issued by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar in which his date of birth was recorded as 13-1- 1950, copy of certificate has been appended with reply statement as Annex.R/1. Even in the staff record the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 13-1-1950, which was signed by the petitioner himself without raising any objection. Copy attached as annexure R/2 with reply statement. They have further asserted that petitioner has claimed that he has made application for correction of his date of birth but it may be noticed that the said application has been made by the petitioner only before two months of his retirement. They have stated that the copy of CNIC of the petitioner shows his date of birth as 13-1-1950. It is submitted by the respondents that no unfair labour practice has been committed by the respondents by recording the date of birth of the petitioner.
4. I have heard arguments of Ch. Latif Saghar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned advocate for the respondents.
5. It was mainly contended by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner was not satisfied with his date of birth recorded by the management, as such he submitted application to the management and respondent management vide letter dated 10-9-2009 requested Civil Surgeon, Services Hospital for verification of age of the petitioner on medical ground. Accordingly the petitioner was examined at Services Hospital, Karachi and vide certificate dated 3-10-2009 it has been certified that petitioner was between the age of 55 to 60 years, therefore, the petitioner gets corroboration that he was not born on 13-1-1950 but was born in the year 1953 and at present the petitioner is aged of about 57 years. It is argued that petitioner was assured by the respondent management that his date of birth will be recorded as per medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon and even thereafter the petitioner vide his application dated 23-11-2009 has requested the respondent management for correction of his date of birth as per medical certificate but very surprisingly the petitioner was kept on false hopes and was surprised to receive letter dated 6-1-2010 issued by General Manager HR informing him that he will be retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 13-1-2010, as such the petitioner has approached this Bench of Commission. It is argued that petitioner is an active trade unionist and Office-Secretary of KESC Labour Union, as such he was being victimized.
6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents company has argued that petitioner is serving with respondents company since last 37 years and while joining the respondent company the petitioner had produced some documents i.e, Matriculation Certificate issued by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar and, it certified that petitioner had passed the examination of the Board in June, 1969 and according to said certificate he was born on 13-1-1950. It is also on record that the petitioner is holder of CNIC which too certifies that he was born on the same date. The respondents along with their written reply have produced so many documents which indicate the date of birth of the petitioner as 13-1-1950. The most important document is Annex.R/2 Staff Record which also bears the signature of petitioner in which it is mentioned that date of birth of the petitioner was 13-1-1950. The counsel for the respondents argued that now a days it has been practice by the employees that on reaching nearer to the age of retirement they come with the plea that their date of birth has not been properly/correctly recorded by the management. In this respect he has relied upon 1998 SCM R 1494, 2003 SCM R 1105 and order of Full Bench of this Commission dated 5-12-2005 passed in Appeal No,12(11)/05-K. The learned counsel has further argued that the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission is to entertain and adjudicate cases of unfair labour practice arid not other cases. In this regard he has placed his reliance on PLD 1988 Supreme Court 53.
7. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the documents produced with the petition and I have also gone through the above referred laws.
8. The petitioner has served with respondent company for about 37 years. At the time of joining his services he was not member of any trade union, as such he cannot come forward with the claim that due to his trade union activities his date of birth has been wrongly recorded by the management.
9. Most important document in respect of date of birth is Matriculation Certificate which shows that petitioner was regular student of Government High School Havelian (Hazara) and according to School record the petitioner was born on 13-1-1950. Naturally before getting education the petitioner must have obtained the education in primary school and at the time of getting admission in Primary School the petitioner's parents had recorded his date of birth as 13-1-1950, as such claim of the petitioner that he was not born on 13-1-1950 but was born on 13-1-1953 is an afterthought. According to matriculation certificate petitioner was passed his matriculation examination at the age of 16 years, and if we believe that petitioner was born on 13-1-1953, in that case how it could be believed that the petitioner has passed his matriculation examination at the age of 13 years.
11. In a decided case of Saleh Shah son of Rahim Shah versus Karachi Dock Labour Board Full Bench of this Commission vide order dated 5-12-2005 has held that recording of wrong date of birth in the record the management has not committed any act of unfair labour practice.
12. Frankly. Speaking I myself have observed the petitioner. He appears to be more than older to me and presently I am of 62 years of age. How can petitioner claim that he is of 57 years.
' In view of above discussed facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice. Accordingly not only the stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 but the main petition also stands dismissed.