' The facts leading up to this appeal are that the appellant Azizur Rehman after retirement from the Army was employed with the respondent Karachi Transport Corporation as a Security Guard since 12th April, 1968. On 8th December, 1982, he was made to retire from the service of the respondent Corporation by an order, dated 7th December, 1982. According to him he had not yet attained 60 years the age of superannuation and, therefore, his order of termination by way of retirement was illegal. He served a grievance notice on the respondent and his grievance having not been redressed, he filed the grievance application before the learned Labour Court No, IV at Karachi. The learned Labour Court dismissed his application. Aggrieved by the impugned order he has come in this appeal.
2. I have perused the material evidence on the record adduced by both the parties and have also beard the learned representatives, Mr. S. M. Kohistani for the appellant Mr. Ghulam Hussain for the respondent. It is an admitted position that the age of retirement in the service of the respondent was 60 years. It has been contended by the appellant that he was made to retire at the age of 52 years. The burden lay on him to prove his assertion that he was prematurely retired. He has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time be sought employment with the respondent he had furnished his biodata. The particulars given whereof at Exh. A/2 are signed by him. He has shown his age therein as 47 years on 10th November, 1968. It would definitely come more than 60 years on 8th December, 1982, when he was made to retire from service.
' Confronted with the situation what I find from evidence on record that he has gone on shifting the date of bise birth from time to time in a bid to show that he was prematurely retired. He has relied on his Identity Card which be obtained from the respondent showing therein his birth date as 10th May, 1930. In his grievance notice he showed the year of his birth as 1933. In his affidavit in evidence he further shifted his date of birth as 10th May, 1940. He has failed to produce without assigning any reason the Army discharge certificate which would disclose the entire particulars of his birth date, age etc., for the reasons best known to him. The best evidence on the issue with regard to his age certificate of his birth and the school leaving certificate have not been produced by him and in the fact of evidence above mentioned the presumption that would arise would be that he had deliberately suppressed the same as they would not be favourable to him. Accordingly, I find that the evidence that has been adduced on the record does not support his case at all. On the contrary it shows that he A was retired on attaining the age of 60 years which admittedly is the age of superannuation in the service of the respondent, Karachi Transport Corporation. In view of this finding the issue as to whether he is a workman or not would not appear necessary for adjudication. I, therefore, find that the impugned order of the learned Labour Court was rightly passed and would not call for interfetence.
3. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.