DECISION JUSTICE (RTD) AHMED ALI U QURESHI, J:- This is an appeal against the order, dated 15.1.1990, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, whereby he allowed grievance petition filed by the respondent and ordered his reinstatement in service with consequential back benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was retired from service from 22.5.1988 on allegedly attaining the age of sixty years. The respondent claim that his date of birth, according to service book, was 19.11.1933 and therefore his retirement on 22.5.1988 on the ground of allegedly attaining the age of sixty years was illegal. After serving grievance notice upon the respondent he filed grievance petition. The appellants, however, claimed, that age of the respondent was entered in service book on 22.5.1973 on the basis of medical certificate which showed his age to be 45 years and that entry with regard to his date of birth as 19.11.1933 who forged and that on 26.3.1987 the respondent had moved an application for encashment of L.P.R.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ahmed Siddiqi, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. M.Bashir Awan, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The only point at issue is as to when the respondent would attain the age of sixty years. The best evidence in such case would be the date of birth entered in the record of service at the the of entry of the employee in the service. It appears that no entry of age was made at the the of the entry in service of the respondent which was 1.6.1954. It appears that in 1973 he was referred to the Medical Officer, who issued certificate which is Annexure R-2 certifying him 'fit for service' and it further showed that his age, according to appearance of respondent, was 45 years. It will be clear from this certificate that opinion with regard to age was formed by the Doctor on the basis of appearance of the respondent and not on the basis of ossification test, E-Rays or any other scientific method. Such an opinion cannot be considered to be a correct base of determination of age. The service book of the respondent which was admittedly kept by the appellants, had not been produced. They allege that it has been misplaced or that it has been taken away by the respondent through this daughters who are working in the Department. However there is no such evidence that the service book was taken away by his aughteres. It was duly of the appellants to have kept in safe custody the record of the employees, which is a valuable document and its non- production would raise presumption against the appellants. The respondent has produced copy of service book which he was given by the appellants. In this service book, the age of respondent is first entered as 2.5.1928 as verified by civil Surgeon Hyderabad. This entry was made on 22.5.1973.
However this entry was secored of and another entry in 'red ink' was made showing date of birth as 19.11.1933. This corrected date was also signed by 'Superintendent, Telegraph Workshop, Kotri and is dated 10.9.73. This 'Service Book' is Ex-A/22. The respondent has also produced 'Identity Card' Ex.A/21 issued by the Assistant 'Superintendent' Telegraph workshop, Kotri in which also his dale of birth is shown on '1933'. As against this evidence produced by the respondent, which are documents, issued by the appellant's Department, the appellants have produced no evidence except the certificate of Civil Surgeon to show that the respondent had attained the age of sixty years on 22.5.1988. I have already pointed out that this certificate can not be considered as an authentic evidence of age. The appellants claimed that the respondent had moved application on 26.3.1987 for encashment of L.P.R, but even that application had also not been produced by the appellants. It may also be pointed out that prior to his retirement viz on 25.4.1988, the respondent had vide Annexure A-3 raised objection that his date of retirement was not 22.5.1988 but that he had five years more to serve. However no further enquiry was made to ascertain the correct date of birth of the respondent but basing their opinion on the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon in 1973 the respondent was retired.
5. The only evidence produced by the appellants is R/29 issued in July, 1976 under which the upper age limit of various employees was relaxed for the purpose of their entry in service. This letter covers hundreds of employees including the respondent. The copy of this letter is shown to have been sent to 'all concerned' but neither respondent was confronted with this letter nor there is any proof to show that it was served upon the respondent. This letter was produced by one Mohammad Khan, a witness of the appellant, it appears, that the appellant's Department is not working accordance with rules. As pointed above the age of the appellant or other employees was not determined at the the of their entry in service. The respondent entered in service in 1954 but his age, for the purpose of entry in service, was relaxed after 22 years in 1976. Such a document would not be in accordance with the rules and regulations and has no evidentiary value. Even otherwise it docs not show as to what was exectly the age of the respondent.
6. In view of the above discussions I see no merits in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.