1. DECISION This appeal is received by transfer from the learned Sind Labour Court No. 4, for disposal.
2. It is directed agiinstthe Order dated 22-2-1975 passed by the learned Junior Labour Court No. 1, dismissing the application under section 25-A of I. R. O. filed by the appellant in the Junior Labour Court for his re-instatement. The appellant was said to be a permanent employee in the respondent firm and on 4-11-1974 he being of 55 years of age, was retired from service, although according to him he had not yet completed 55 years and that his retirement is premature. After sending the grievance notice, he filed his application under section 25-A of I. R. O. in the Junior Labour Court which passed the impugned order. The respondent on the other hand alleged that the appellant was retired from service on Teaching the age of superannuation, as per practice, and the settlement between the management and the Workers Union. I have heard the Representatives of the parties. I have also examined the record of the Junior Labour Court. The appellant in his application under section 25-A of I. R. O. had shown that according to the terms of the settlement between the respondent and the employees Union, the retirement age of an employee was 55 years but he has been retired prematurely about two years prior, as per the Medical Certificate produced by him in the Junior Labour Court. The record however, shows that at the time of the entry in the service the appellant had filled the Employment Form and executed a Declaration Form (Exh. B to the Reply Statement) and in the declaration form he had shown bis date of birth as 1-11- 1918. These documents were shown to the appellant who had admitted that he had filled in the employment form and also executed the declaration which bear his signature. According to this date of birth, the age of the appellant on 4-11-1973 when he was retired comes to 56 years. He also admitted that the Company has been retiring personnels from time to time on reaching the age of 55 years. The appellants was confronted with the list (Exh. E to the Reply Statement) of 18 persons who had retired at that age, and he admitted it to be correct. The learned Representative of the appellant however, has relied upon the medical certificate having been obtained by the appellant from a Medical Officer, showing that in the opinion of the Medical Officer the approximate age of the appellant was nearly 53 years (Anx. B to the application). The appellant had however, not examined the Medical Officer to testify to that effect as to under which circumstances the Medical Officer had given this at random opinion. The certificate is however, rightly rejected by the learned Junior Labour Court. I therefore, hold that according to the very declaration of the A appellant his date of birth is 1-11-1918, as such he has been rightly retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation, I, therefore, find no merit in the appeal which stands dismissed.