' Taj Din (hereinafter called the petitioner) joined the services of the Pioneer Steel Mills Limited (hereinafter called the respondent) in 1974. He came to know, that the respondent wanted to terminate his services on the ground of superannuation. The petitioner, therefore, made an application on 20th October, 1979 (Exh. R. E.) that his age was not 60 years as written by the time office, therefore, the record relating to his age may be corrected. Medical certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent Services Hospital, Lahore was annexed alongwith this application in which the age of the petitioner was given as 52/53 years 'in 1979-8G. The respondent referred the petitioner to the Medical Board consi?Ting of Medical Superintendent District Head Quarter Hospital, Sheikhupura and Dr. Hamid Hussain, Chief Medical Inspector of Factories for determination of his age vide letter Exh. R. C. The Medical Board examined the petitioner and reported his age to be 58/59 years on 5th of November, 1979 vide its certificate Exh. R. D. The petitioner made an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on 4th November, 1981 restraining the respondent from terminating the service of the petitioner and for correction of his age. An interim injunction was also prayed for and my learned predecessor issued an interim injunction on 4th November, 1981. The petitioner however, was retired on 3rd November, 1981, a day before the issuance of the stay order. The petitioner has contended that this order, dated 3rd November 1981 was in fact after the receipt of stay order. The petitioner withdrew his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and then filed the present petition after serving the grievance notice.
2. According to the petitioner, he has not attained the age of superannuation, therefore, he cannot be retired by the respondent on the ground that he has attained the age of 60 years. Admittedly the age of superannuation in the respondent service is 60 years.
3. The petitioner has contended that he has been victimized because of his lawful trade union activities, he was never produced before the Medical Board whose report is Exh. R. D. And that order of retirement is in fact an order of dismissal from service.
4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent and it has been contended that no guaranteed right of the petitioner has been violated. It has been further contended that the age of the petitioner on 11th November, 1974 was 55 years according to his own saying, therefore, he had rightly been retired from service and it was denied that the petitioner has been victimized because of his trade union activities or that the petitioner was retired after receipt of ad interim injunction.
5. The petitioner has appeared as his own witness in support of the proposition that his age is not 55 years as entered in his personal data form Exh. R. A. Filled up on 1st September, 1974. He produced copy of the medical certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent Services Hospital Lahore which shows that his age was about 52/53 years on 17th October, 1979. The petitioner has not stated a word about his present age neither in his statement in the Court nor in his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The medical certificate of Services Hospital contains a note on the top of the certificate itself that the certificate was being issued for the purpose of identity card. It is obvious that the petitioner would have told the doctor issuing the certificate that he was to get his identity card and the doctor roughly entered A the age of the petitioner as would have been stated by him but then the petitioner produced this certificate in the Court in order to prove his age. This shows how much truthful the petitioner is and how much raliance can be placed upon this oral testimony of the petitioner. If he had told the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore that he was to produce this certificate before the Court perhaps he would not have been able to get this certificate or at least the 'Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital would have held different tests for determination of age and then issued the certificate. The medical certificate (Exh. R. D.) issued by a Medical Board consisting of Dr. Hamid Hussain Chief Inspector Factories Government of the Punjab and Dr. Anis Ahmad, Medical Superintendent District Headquarters Hospital, Sheikhupura shows that the age of the petitioner was 58/59 years on 5th November, 1979 and it is round-about the age given in his personal data form (Exh. R. A.) filled up at the time of joining the service. This medical certificate issued by a Board of Doctors and the entry in the personal data form satisfactorily establish that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and he was rightly retired by the respondent. I don't find any reason on the record to hold that the Board of Doctors had issued a bogus medical certificate. It is quite natural that the personal data form was filled up on the instructions of the petitioner otherwise the man filling up the personal data form had no personal knowledge to fill up this form It is strange that the petitioner has not challenged any entry in 12 columns of the personal data form but he challenges only one entry in the whole of this form as incorrect. The contention of the petitioner about the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board (Exh. R. D.) is that he was never produced before the Medical Board and for this purpose he had produced Muhammad Saddique (P. W.-2) who stated that the petitioner was never produced before the Medical Board but some other old man was produced before the doctor. This story is afterthought because the petitioner has not mentioned this story in his previous application (Exh. R. D.) filed by him to check his threatened retirement and correction of his entries in the service record. This story of producing another old worker before the Medical Board is given in paragraph 6 (C) of the present petition but is not mentioned at all in the previous application Exh. R. B. This story has been concocted to defeat the medical certificate (Exh. R. D). I may state here that, during the pendency of the proceedings of the present application, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore and his opinion is that the age of the petitioner is between 50 to 60 years. This certificate does not lead us anywhere. Since it is now proved on the record that the petitioner has been retired on attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, he is no longer a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and he is not competent to file a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance as held in 1980 L L C 393 and 198 PLC 514.
6. The petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his contention that the order of retirement was passed after service of ad interim injunction restraining his retirement. Such a contention could be proved by producing documents which has not been done nor there is any other satisfactory evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been victimized for his trade union activities. No such activity has been proved.
7. The upshot of what has stated above is that the petition has no force and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.