DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 26-2-1985, passed by the Labour Court NO.VII, Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A I. R.O.
1969.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant was working with the respondent establishment as Motor Driver Grade IV and according to him, at that time, when his age was 55 years and the total length of service was of 18 years, he was, of retired from service, vide Order, dated 1-9-1984. That, as there was no documentary proof in regard to his actual age, available with the respondent establishment, therefore, he got himself examined by the civil surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sukkur, who had issued him a certificate, dated 25-10-1984 to the effect that he was about 55 years of age. Thereafter, he protested to the respondent and establishment against his premature retirement and subsequently served a grievance notice and then a grievance petition before the Labour Court
3. The case of the respondent establishment was that when the appellant was appointed as Helper on 4-11-1966, he did not produce any proof of his age and date of birth, so for maintaining proper record under the Law, the appellant was got examined by the Medical Officer of the respondent establishment, who determined the age of the appellant to be 42 years and this fact was conveyed to the appellant who did not raise any objection thereto. Thus, the appellant was rightly retired from his service on, attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, his petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as no right guaranteed or secured to him had been infringed.
4. Both the parties filed affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court , then dismissed the petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment. There is an admission by the appellant, in his cross-examination, before the learned Labour Court that he was appointed as Helper on 4-11-1966 and at that time he had no documentary proof in support of his age, therefore, he was got examined by the Medical Officer of the respondent establishment who had determined his age as 42 years at the time of his original, appointment and this fact was communicated to him, but, he did not raise any objection till the date, when he was retired from the service by the respondent establishment. There is further an admission by the appellant that after his retirement, he himself had approached the Civil Surgeon, CivilHospital, Sukkur, who had assessed his age as 55 years at the time of his retirement. Neither there is any detail of examination of the appellant in the said certificate of the Civil Surgeon, who had issued the same, nor the said Civil Surgeon was put in, evidence by the appellant before the learned Labour Court for cross-examination by the respondent establishment. Therefore, a simple piece of paper, showing it as a Medical Certificate, is not a cogent and respondent evidence in the eyes of laws, hence it is rejected. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant holding that the appellant had no prima facie case made out by him against the respondent establishment.
6. For the reason discussed by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain it. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H./943/Lb.S,