' JUSTICE CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 9-2-2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi whereby the learned Labour Court accepted the grievance petition filed by the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is .Presently employee of IESCO.
He was appointed on 1-6-1973 as ALM in Repco where his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1- 6-1953 and 9-10-1954 whereas his actual date of birth as per CNIC and matriculation certificate is 11-2-1955. At the time of his admission neither he had CNIC nor had passed the matriculation examination. Further contended that later on Repco was converted into Wapda and in the department his date of birth was corrected by the competent authority ; But the Deputy Manager IESCO Tariqabad Rawalpindi wrote a letter No,433-54 to the appellant about his attaining the age of superannuation, in response to above letter appellant No,1 sent the case to Deputy Manager (Operation) Tariqabad who onward submitted to appellant No,3 for approval and appellant No,3 raised an issue pertaining to the date of birth of the respondent and directed the respondent to get approved the same from the competent authority whereupon a scrutiny committee was constituted and the appellant No,3 further forwarded the case to the appellant No,1 vide letter dated 15-3-2014 and mentioned the date of birth of the respondent as 1-6-1953 instead of correct date of birth i,e, 11-2-1955. Therefore the appellant pray that office order dated 18-1-1967 dated 13- 5-2014 and relieving order No,2166-67 dated 14-5-2014 be declared illegal and without lawful authority and ineffective on the rights of appellant.
3. The matter was proceeded and after adopting due course of law, the learned Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi decided the grievance petition. ' The operative part of impugned order has been reproduced as under:- "For determining the age of an employee of Wapda there are specific rules i,e, Pakistan Wapda Employees Date of Birth Rules, 1994 according to which for considering the documents for confirmation of date of birth of an employee under Rule-III matriculation certificate of the employee would be considered. Admittedly, at the time of joining of service of the petition was neither matriculation nor, had CNIC. For determining the correct date of employee. Department himself constituted a scrutiny committee vide letter dated 14-2-2014 who made recommendation.
But the findings of scrutiny committee were never challenged at any forum which has attained finality. In a similar case of nature tilted Muhammad Irfan v. IESCO date of birth of a workman on the basis of matriculation certificate as required under the Rules of Employee of Wapda has been decided and case of present petitioner is of the similar nature. Certificate of the department shows that his correct date of birth has been found as 11-4-1955 and same is in the matriculation certificate date of birth is 11-2-1955. Admission of the petitioner in the school shown at Sr. No,157 brought on record is also recorded is 11-4-1953.
' It is settled principal of law that rules and regulations are to be made for the benefits of the employee are documents and record which goes into the favour of the employee has to be considered favorably copies of CNIC brought on the record and school record and matriculation certificate fully support the contentions of the petition as required under Pakistan Wapda Employee Date of Birth Rules, 1994 as such while accepting application filed by the petition impugned orders dated 13-5-2014 and 14-5-2014 are found to be illegal and without lawful authority and ineffective on the right of the petitioner. Therefore respondents are hereby directed to maintain service record of the present petitioner as per recommendation of enquiry report No,2044-49 dated 20-2-2014."
4. Hence this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia, contended that the learned Presiding Officer did not go through the record properly and carefully and passed the impugned order dated 9-2-2015 without recording of evidence which resulted into a grave miscarriage of justice. Further contended that respondent had given a declaration of age made at the time for the purpose of entry into WAPDA service that had to be deemed to be conclusive unless the employee applies for correction of age within two years from the date of his first entry into service. It is further submitted that at the time of entry in WAPDA service cannot be altered/changed except in case of a clerical error and has prayed that appeal be accepted and impugned order be set aside.
5. Conversely respondent himself vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal and argued in favour of impugned order.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The appellant was appointed on 1-6-1973 in Repco where his date of birth was record as 1-6-1953 and 9-10-1954. Perusal of record show that at the time of joining of service, the appellant was neither a matriculate nor he had CNIC. On 21-5-2014, the appellant approached the learned Labour Court for the correction of his date of birth.
8. Because of the peculiar circumstances of the case, Pakistan Wapda Employee Date of Birth Rules, 1994 are not applicable in the case of the appellant and in such circumstances it is the only a Civil Court who can made a declaration in relation with the determination of date of birth.
9. The contention of correction of date of birth and this belated stage is also not warranted under the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case, Syed lqbal Haider v. Federation of Pakistan and another reported as (1998 SCM R 1494) whereby it was held that government employee under the relevant rules cannot make any application for change in his date of birth after two years of his joining the service. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that authenticity of date of birth regarding in the documents cannot be challenged be lately beyond the period of two years. Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in another case titled M.R. Khalid v. Chief Secretary, Punjab and another (1994 SCM R 1633).
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted as prayed and the impugned order dated 9-2-2015 passed by Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi is set aside.