1. ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal impeaches the legality of the judgment dated 27-4-2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant joined Habib Bank Ltd. As Clerk on 8-3-1976.
2. His application-cum-Bio data form which was filed by the appellant himself disclosed his date of birth as 1-5-1951. Along with the bio data, he submitted his joining report with detailed particulars in which he also showed his date of birth as 1-5-1951. His N.I. Card also showed the same date.
3. Likewise, he obtained marriage grant through an application dated 27-1-1979 in which he disclosed his date of birth as 1-5-1951. In his application for promotion to officer cadre he also disclosed his date of birth as 1-5-1951. Likewise in number of other documents on the record this date of birth has been continuously recorded. However, in 1996 it transpired to him after 20 years of service that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his matriculation certificate and in all documents mentioned above. In 1996 when he was posted in a Branch of the bank at Khushab, he filed a civil suit in Khushab impleading the authorities of Secondary Board Sargodha and his father as a party. It is noteworthy that the bank was not made a party which was the main and necessary party to the litigation claiming that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the matriculation certificate which may be ordered to be corrected. The relevant Board was directed to correct his date of birth.
4. On the basis of this order of court he procured a fresh matriculation certificate bearing his date of birth as he desired and requested the bank to change his date of birth from 1-5-1951 to 1-5-1954 in their record. As a sequel to this order it was further requested that he may not be retired on 30-4- 2011, rather he may be allowed to serve upto 30-4-2014.
3. The bank declined his request on the ground that the date of birth was recoded by the appellant himself in a number of applications which provided an irrefutable evidence of his correct date of birth. It was added that the bank had never been a party to any such litigation hence they are not bound to change the date of birth which had been procured at their back.
4. The refusal of the bank led the appellant to file an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal with a detailed and exhaustive judgment on 19-8-2000. The appellant did not challenge the judgment of the FST before the Supreme Court, as such it attained finality. However he filed his grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore in the year 2010 claiming to be a workman and entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground that the decree by the Civil Court was binding on the bank as such they were bound to honour the same and change his date of birth as per order of the Civil Court.
5. 5.The bank refuted the assertions claiming inter alia that the grievance petition was not maintainable as it was grossly time-barred; that the judgment of the FST had attained finality as he did not file appeal before the Supreme Court; and even otherwise, the date of birth recorded in the Board record at the time of joining of service coupled with numerous documents in which he himself claimed his date of birth as recorded in the bank's record. During the course of trial before the Labour Court an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was filed by the bank which was duly contested by the appellant and consequently the Labour Court non-suited the appellant holding that in view of the fact that had already availed the remedy in the FST and had not challenged the judgment of dismissal of his appeal by the FST which had attained finality as such the grievance petition was not maintainable. Even otherwise the grievance petition was equally hopelessly time- barred.
6. 6.Arguments have been heard and record perused. Careful perusal of the record shows that the appellant has relied on his trickery and craft which is visible from the record. He filed civil suit at Khushab where he was posted. He arrayed the Chairman and the Secretary Board Sargodha and Controller of Examination as respondents Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No,3 was his father (Ali Muhammad), It is not understandable as to why he would array his father as respondent No,3. He seems to have designedly omitted to implead the bank so that he may clandestinely get decree from the civil court because no interest of respondents particularly respondent No,3 was involved in the matter. It was the bank who had to suffer on the basis of the decree and to retain him as an Officer beyond his age. His original matriculation certificate is on the record which clearly shows that 1-5-1951 was based on a form filled by himself and it was not inserted or included by the Board.
7. A chain of documents submitted by him are on record, which has already been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment in which the appellant himself showed his date of birth as 1-5-1951. As the appellant had failed to arraign the bank and tried to gain benefit out of the judgment of the civil court by concealing material facts, the decree so obtained by the appellant was not binding on the bank.
8. 8.He joined service of the bank in the year 1976 and after putting in about 20 years service it dawned upon him that his date was wrongly recorded in his matriculation certificate. The law permits to agitate such an issue only within two years of joining service and not otherwise. This rule has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Syed Iqbal Haider v.
9. Federation of Pakistan and another (1998 SCM R 1494) wherein it was observed by their Lordships:-- - "We may also refer to the submission made by the learned Attorney General that, in Government service, an employee cannot make any application for change in his date of birth after two yeaRs, On analogy, such rule should also be followed in judiciary, which otherwise would lead to serious complications, and open a pandora's box. Similarly, authenticity of date of birth recorded in the documents cannot be challenged belatedly, specially beyond the abovementioned period."
10. ' Deprecating the practice of filing cases for change of date of birth when the age of retirement comes closer it was observed by their Lordships in case of Qamaruddin v. Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division Islamabad another (2007 SCM R 66) as under:- "We may observe that lately a tendency has developed whereby unwarranted claims, attempting to show error in "date of birth" are asserted towards retiring age by fabricating or manipulating documents in that behalf. Obviously such practice must be discouraged and effectively curbed.
11. Additionally, the grievance agitated before us do not make out any substantial question of law having public importance."
12. 9.## TS##In this case there has been absolutely no discrimination by the bank vis-a-vis the appellant. No other example of any case wherein in identical situation the bank had changed the date has been brought on the record. Even otherwise, I agree with the learned Labour Court that his appeal was rightly dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal on 19-8-2000 and he had filed the grievance petition on 6-4-2010 which was grossly belated and no plausible or solid reasons have been given by the appellant for condonation of such a colossal delay. No case has been made out by the appellant for interference in the judgment of the Labour Court which stands on solid footings.
13. 10.In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.