' The decision dated 26th September, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service holding that his age of superannuation had not yet reached.
2. The respondent was a charge hand. He was retired on 21st November, 1981 according to the service record. He received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim on 13th January, 1982 vide Exh. R.
7. He also made an application Exh. R. 2 asking for the confirmation of his son on the ground that he had been after rendering service retired. Service record is Exh. R.
6. The respondent was employed in 1966 and his age at that time is given as 45 years. In Exhs. R. 4 and R. 5 which two bear his signatures, the age comes to be the same. Exhs. P. 5 and P. 6 are medical certificates. The learned lower Court relied upon them. The certificates firstly are not based upon any X-ray report and secondly they cannot be given preference over the service record which bears the signatures of the respondent. In the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that in service record the age was given according to the information given by the employee concerned. Medical certificates may be adhered to when other kind of evidence about age is not available. There is no evidence that in the service record fabrication was made so far as the age is concerned. The learned lower Court thus wrongly relied upon the medical certificates Exhs. P. 5 and P.
6.
3. However, I do not find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is not covered by the definition of workman. Merely recommending leave applications and forwarding them to the competent authority would hardly exclude one from the plea of workman. R. W. 2 has said that the workers were under the supervision of the respondent.
This is not believable that for two persons a supervisor was appointed. So the learned lower Court has rightly said that the respondent is a workman.
4. The act of the respondent in receiving his dues in full and final settlement of his claim vide Exh. R.
7 and then asking the appellant vide Exh. R. 2 to confirm his son since he himself had been retired, debarred him from challenging the order of retirement, particularly when it does not appear that in his service record his age was given wrongly. The rulings cited by the learned counsel such as 1981 PLC 670, 1973 PLC 297 and 1984 PLC 424 and 425 support him in this respect.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.