DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against the impugned order, dated 30-5-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Muhammad Ayub, filed by him under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was employed by the appellant Corporation as a Driver. On 7-12-1982, he was delivered a letter of termination of his services on the ground that he attained the age of superannuation from 18-12-1982. The respondent submitted an appeal to the appellant Corporation that at the time of alleged termination /retirement of his service, his age was 49 years, therefore, the action of the appellant Corporation was illegal.
3. The case of the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court was that the respondent was not of 49 years of age, but in fact, on 9-2-1980, his age was 58 years, therefore, he was rightly retired from service at the age of 60 years.
4. A pre-admission notice was issued the respondent. I, therefore, heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan for the appellant Corporation and Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the respondent and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the respondent has referred to me the National Identity Card No. 517-34-004303, issued on 26-12-1973 in favour of the respondent in which his date of birth is mentioned as 1934. Moreover, it is contended by Mr. Lodhi that, even, in the Identity Card No. 2205, issued by the appellant Corporation itself, at the time of employment of the respondent, his date of birth is mentioned as 1934. It is contended by the respondent that in the three medical examination reports of the respondent, issued by Karachi Transport Corporation Medical Center, there are contradictory to each other, the dates of birth of the respondent and all these reports are duly signed by the Medical Officer of the appellant Corporation. According to report, dated 9-2- 1980, the age of the respondent is mentioned as 58 years. In the report, dated 20-7-1981, the approximate age of the respondent is mentioned as 50 years, while in the report, dated 24-3-1982, the age of the respondent is mentioned 'as per personal file'. Finally, Mr. Lodhi has referred to me to a medical certificate, dated 5-3-1983 issued by the Civil Surgeon (Central Government), Karachi, in which the age of respondent is estimated as '49 years' in 1983. Mr. Lodhi has, therefore, pleaded that only for the sake of retiring the respondent, the appellant Corporation had deliberately ignored all the above authentic documentary evidence in support of the respondent and had based their action against the respondent only on medical examination report, dated 9-2-1980. On the other hand, Mr. Azmatullah Khan for the appellant Corporation has nothing to submit in rebuttal of the pleadings of the respondent. In view of this position, I hold that the correct age of the respondent is 1934, as has been mentioned in National Identity Card and also in the Identity Card issued by the appellant Corporation itself. Therefore, his alleged retirement /termination of service in 1982 was premature and illegal, thus, not sustainable.
5. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, it is hereby maintained. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed, in limine.
The respondent is directed to be re-instated in service forthwith, but without wages for the period of unemployment of the respondent.