DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 16-12-1989 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,IV at Karachi, whereby grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case arc that the respondent was retired on 12-12-1988 on reaching the age of 58 years on the basis of date of birth shown by him in the application for appointment. The respondent claimed that he had not reached the age of 58 years which was wrongly entered in his service record as application showing the date of birth was not signed by him. After serving the grievance notice upon the appellants, he filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the appellants and Mr. Khalilur Rehman, learned representative for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. Admittedly the respondent had joined the service of Sindh Road Transport Corporation and his services were subsequently transferred to the appellants. The only evidence available with the appellants is his alleged application for service which has been produced as Exbt. A/1. This application is dated 12-4-1969 and purports to bear the signature of the respondent in English. In this application, the date of birth of the respondent is shown to be 12-12-1930. It is not disputed that under the Settlement arrived at between the C.B.A. And the appellants, the age of retirement of workman had been fixed at 58 years which may be extended to 60 years. On the basis of this age shown in the application, the respondent would attain 58 years on 11-12-1988. However, the respondent disputed his signature on this document which purports to bear his signature in English. The learned Labour Court has pointed, that there is no other document on record to show the signature of the respondent in English. As pointed, this application was received from the original employer by the appellants on transfer of the services of the respondent to the appellants.
5. It may also be pointed that on 6-8-1988, the Secretary of the appellants stablishment issued an order of retirement of employees including that of the respondent who would be retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent's case is that for the first time, he came to know about wrong entry of the age in the record after issuance of the letter. He, therefore, served grievance notice upon the appellants and also filed his grievance Petition No,169 of 1988 which was withdrawn on 17-10-1988 as premature. The order of retirement was however, passed by the appellants on 12-12-1988. The respondent claimed that his year of birth was 1935 as entered in his National Identity Card which he has produced before the learned Labour Court. He also produced before the learned Labour Court as Annexure A/3, which is a Certificate issued by the Medical Officer of the appellants, which is dated 1-11-1987 and in which the age of the respondent is mentioned as 53 years. However, it is admitted that this Certificate was not issued for determining the age, but, he was referred to the Doctor for some other ailment and his age was given by the Doctor as stated by the respondent before the Doctor. The respondent had also got himself examined by Dr. Sanaullah Qureshi, Civil Surgeon, Services Hospital, Karachi on 3-9-1988 for the purpose of determination of his age who certified his age to be of 53 years. This certificate has been produced by the respondent alongwith his grievance petition as Annexure A/C. Dr. Sanaullah Qureshi was examined in the Labour Court, who proved this certificate. All these facts make it clear that before the order of retirement was passed, a dispute was raised by the respondent before the appellants as to the authenticity of his age entered in the service record. There is no evidence to show that the appellants heard the respondent or held any enquiry to ascertain the age of the respondent before passing the impugned order of retirement on 12-12-1988.
6. The learned Labour Court has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, KAR-262 of 1986, decided on 18-9-1988, where the order of retirement of workman was set aside by this Tribunal holding that:- "... There is nothing on record to show whether in case of a dispute over the age of the respondent, the appellant corporation had either verified the authenticity of the documents as had been relied by the respondent; or he was asked to appear before a Medical Board to ascertain his correct age. It was the duty of the Corporation to take and maintain correct, uptodate and authentic service record of its all employees and it would not be proper for it to take decisions against an employee according to its own choice."
I am in respectful agreement with the view of my learned predecessor which applies on all the fours to the present case. The decision of retirement taken by the appellants is against the principle of Natural Justice as he was not heard; his case was not considered and authenticity of the original application was not verified or ascertained specially in view of the fact that the respondent had denied his signature on this application showing his date of birth.
7. In view of the above circumstances, I find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned Labour Court is maintained. However, the appellants would be at liberty to retire the respondent, if after due notice to him and due enquiry, it is held by the competent authority that he had reached the age of superannuation.