' The above-captioned appeal arises from the decision, dated 26th May, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement.
2. The dispute is about the date of birth of the appellant. He has been retired in 1981 according to the service record Exh. R-2, wherein the date of birth is given as 2nd March, 1921. This record was prepared on 27th June, 1951 but the signatures of the appellant were obtained on it on 3rd October, 1970 which he admits. He is a literate person, so the presumption is that while signing Exh. P. 2 he had read the date of birth. He did not object to it and signed it. He was got medically examined on 18th May, 1957 and the doctor issued certificate Exh. P. 5 giving the age as thirty-four years. The appellant challenged the order of retirement on the basis of this document. Medical certificates of age have little value and they may be acted upon when no other kind of evidence is available.
Such certificates are based on rough opinion and ages are given approximately with the possibility of variation of two or three years on either side. The appellant relies upon Exhs. P. 15, P. 16 and P. 6 also. But they are again based upon the medical report Exh. P.
5. Exhs. P. 15 and P. 16 are identity cards and Exh. P. 6 is gradation list. No doubt, these documents were issued by the respondents but there is no evidence that the date of birth was given after making some enquiry. The difficulty is that the appellant gave his date of birth as 2nd March, 1921 in his application Exh. R-1. He said that his service record had been received from India and that his date of birth was 2nd March, 1921. He admitted application dated 21st August, 1961, photo copy of which is Exh. R-1. The original was shown to him while exhibiting Exh. R-1 in evidence. In the presence of date of birth given by the appellant in Exh. R-1, the appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. He is estopped from saying that his date of birth is 18th May, 1923. So the learned lower Court rightly held that the date of birth of the appellant was 2nd March, 1921 and that he was rightly retired in 1981.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.