The decision, dated 4-3-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the learned lower Court found that the respondent would attain the age of 60 years on 27-5-1987.
2. Previously the case was remanded for redecision after getting the respondent medically examined for his age on the basis of X-Ray report and other tests. The report is that according to X- Ray result the age is between 50 and 60 years. Again no definite opinion has been expressed.
However, previously my attention was not drawn to Exhs. R-1 and R-2. The respondent in cross- examination admitted his, signatures on these documents and thus he is bound by the date of birth given therein. Exh.R-1 is dated as 16-4-1974 and age is given therein as 51 years and ten months. According to this document, the respondent reached the age of superannuation on 16-6- 1982. In Exh.R-2 the date of birth is given as 6-6-1922. According to this document, the age of retirement was 6-6-1982. In the presence of the admission of these documents, there remains no controversy about tile date of birth The respondent while admitting his signatures on Exhs. R-1 and lt-2 did not say that his age was wrongly given therein.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the pendency of the petition the respondent has been retired but he did not amend his petition, nor had given any fresh grievance notice, nor brought fresh grievance petition. He has applied for permission to produce the retirement order. The rule of lis pendense applies. The appellant should have applied for the amendment of the written statement and should have taken the plea that the petition for correction of age was no longer maintainable. Even" if now the petition is dismissed and the respondent brings fresh petition, it will make no difference so far as the facts of the case and evidence is concerned, rather it will lead to waste of time. If the impugned order is maintained, the appellant shall have to give duty to the respondent and if the appellant succeeds, the order of retirement would remain effective.
4. It has also been argued that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable as the number of workmen was never 20 or more. There is more evidence on the point but for the decision of this appeal it is not necessary to give finding on the point. The respondent has failed to establish that his age was wrongly given. The point of the application of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 may be decided in some other case.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.
A.E.