' In this appeal the decision, dated 15th of June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 1, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re-instatement in service was accepted.
2. The respondent was retired on the ground that he had attained the age of supernnuation of 60 years. Reliance was placed upon the Service record P/2/B in which the date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 2nd of November, 1920. The respondent claimed that his date of birth was 2nd of November, 1921. In this respect he relied upon the discharge certificate from Army, P.
3. Service certificate, dated 5th March, 1974, P. 5, issued by the P. R. T. B. And history sheet of the appellant attached with the service record.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the service book P. 2/B bears the signatures and thumb-impression of the respondent and that since the said service book was prepared in 1957 when there was no dispute between the parties, the date of birth given in it is the correct one. He also says that according to the information given by the respondent, entries were made in the service book, therefore, the respondent is bound by them. Thus, in service book P. 2/B, the date of birth given as 2nd of November, 1920 is affective but the other part of the service book which is the history sheet suggests the date of birth as 2nd of November, 1921. There is no reason why the history sheet would not be relied upon. On account of difference between the history sheet and the service book, the date of birth which favours the workers should be acted upon. Moreover, the date of birth given in the history sheet stands supported by other documentary evidence namely Army Discharge Certificate, P. 3, and service certificate P. 5 obtained from the P. R. T. B.
There is no document which may support the date of birth given in the service book P. 2/B. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly held that the date of birth of the respondent was 2nd of November, 1921.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same.