DECISION These are two appeals against an award of the Jearned Presiding OHicer of Labour Court No. II, Karachi, dated September 5, 1973, which I propose to dispose of by this order, as the facts are common and the points raised by the learned Representative for the appellant, are also common in both the appeals. The respondents having been retired after attaining the age of 55 years, they challenged the age of retirement and said that they had not attained that age and in support filed, besides, their own affidavits and Medical Certificates of Doctor Muhammad Umar Khan. The learned Labour Court preferred the Certificate of Dr. Umar Khan to that of the Company's Doctor, on the main ground that the Certificates produced by the respondents were based on good grounds. Dr. Umar Khan had come to the conclusion about the age of the respondents after examining them clinically and had also taken their X-rays, for determining their age, he took radiologically Mr. Fakhruddin Farooqi, the learned Representative for the appellants, raised several points, which I propose to dispose of separately.
2. He contended, in the first 'place, that the respondents were retired on lst April 1972. Therefore, the applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), which came into operation from 13th April 1972, were not maintainable. There is much force in this contention. The learned Labour Court overruled this contention on the ground that if a person is entitled to certain relief on the facts stated in his application, the Court can grant the relief. He applied section 34 of the Ordinance and ordered their re-instatement with back benefits. In this connection, it is noteworthy that the applicants did not wait long after their retirement and they made the applications under section 25-A of the Ordinance on June I6, 1972, without much delay. At the time when they had made the applications under section 25-A of the Ordinance, two alternatives were open to the respondents, one was to adopt the cumbersome procedure of Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders! Ordinance), and the other was to make an application under section 34M of the Ordinance. They preferred, it seems to me, the latter procedure fori redress of their grievances, which the Legislature had not taken away on that date. It was only from 10th November 1972, that the word "workman" was deleted from section 34 of the Ordinance. In this connection, it may also be noted that Standing Order l2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, which deals with the termination of employment, was also amended from 15th November 1972, so as to make it incumbent on a workman aggrieved by the termination of his services to make an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance. In my opinion, wherel the Lagislature leaves it open to an aggrieved person two methods tolB redress his grievances, he can choose any one and which suits him better.! The learned Labour Court rightly treated the applications under section 34 of the Ordinance.
3. In the second place, the learned Representative, Mr. Farooqi, contended that there was a Gratuity Scheme, which came into force on 20th July 1959, which gives the age of retirement as 55 years. Therefore, the respondents must have known as to what is the age at which they will retire. There is no presumption in law that the respondents must have known the existence of such a Gratuity Scheme in the absence of any question put to the respondents as to the knowledge of such a Scheme.
4. In the third place, it was submitted that the Medical Reports giving the age of the respondents have been thumb-marked by the respondents and, therefore, they must be knowing the contents thereof. In this connection, one thing is noteworthy that the report gives only the apparent age. Inj other words, the age is given by appearance. An estimate of age based onlyjC on appeararce cannot be accepted. j 5. I would, for the reasons given above, uphold the awards of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeals.