DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. I, Karachi dismissing the petition under section 25-A of the IRO. The circumstances forming the background of the case succinctly stated are as follows:-- The petitioner was appointed as a tracer in 1959. He had applied to the department sometime in 1989 for the correction of his age as to his consternation he had found the entry in his Service Book to be 4-2-1934 as against 15-12-1941. In support of his assertion he had enclosed his Matriculation Certificate and an extract from the Birth Register which he had obtained from India. His request was considered by the A.C. But was turned down on 31-10-1992. He had thereafter sent a grievance notice on 12-9-1992 and filed the petition before the Labour Court.
2. The petition came to be resisted by the respondent. Their contention was that there were repeated occasions before the petitioner to object to wrong entry if any but the question had only been raised at the fag-end of the day to prolong his service. The other contentions also came to be denied.
3. The petitioner was his own witness. Rashid Ali Khan, Headmaster. Government Model School, Karachi was examined as a Court-witness, while Hafeezur Rehman, Administrative Officer of the respondent's organisation appeared for the respondent.
4. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
5. It was contended by Mr. Qasim Ali learned counsel for the respondent that having signed the Service Book the appellant was estopped from challenging the entry as to be found therein. It also appears that the petitioner had filed the option form in 1979. The contention has weight and, therefore, let us have a look at the Service Book which has been produced in the photo-stat.
Column 1 pertains to the name. Though on the showing of Hafeezur Rehman, the appellant's name on the record is Abdul Mateen Chishti, yet the column mentions him as M. Chishti. There is no justification forthcoming as to why this clipping.
6. Column No. 6 thereof pertains to "the exact height by measurement" and against this we find a mention of 4'-6". That should be the height of a dwarf or a pygmy. The appellant who was present in Court did not appear to be below average. I, therefore, decided to have him measured in the Court. He was found to be 5 ft. 3 inches or so. The care with which the document was prepared is a sad commentary on the working of the Authority. It is not worth the paper it is written on and has to be discarded from consideration.
7. Adverting to the evidence produced by the appellant the Municipal. Birth Certificate which is from India is to be brushed aside as it is not authenticated by our High Commissioner in Delhi. Even the Matriculation Certificate which the appellant obtained in 1964, does not inspire much confidence because it was obtained after he had joined the services, as a private student. The Labour Court had sent for the Headmaster of the Model School, Karachi wherein the appellant is alleged to have been studying in 1948, as a Court-witness. Rashid Ali Khan the Headmaster has clearly stated that the register for the year though bearing the name of the appellant as a student of class IV was totally silent in regard to the date of birth. If the register had that entry, it could have gone a long way, but that is not there and that takes me to clause 18 of the Karachi Development Authority Employees Service Regulations, 1973 which reads as under:-- "18.Determination of age --Every person appointed by initial recruitment shall, at the time of appointment, declare the date of his birth with confirmatory documentary evidence, such as a Matriculation Certificate, a School Leaving Certificate or a Municipal Birth Certificate. In the absence of any such document, his age shall be got determined from the authorised Medical Officer."
8. Admittedly when the appellant had applied foe the job he had not produced any of the documents as to be found in the aforesaid clause. It was obligatory on the respondent to have got the appellant medically examined for the determination of his age as enjoined by the aforesaid clause. That was not done. Even when the representation had been made by the respondent challenging the entry in the Service Book it did not occur to the respondents to j retrieve the situation.
9. The order of retirement in the circumstances was unlawful and cannot be sustained. He will be reinstate4 in service within 15 days. The respondent will have him examined by the authorised officer and that will be decisive. Whatever the results he will be entitled to his pay and other benefits from the date he handed over charge after retirement up to the date that the results are obtained. In full, because the order of retirement was unlawful and in flagrant breach of the Authority's Regulation. If, however, he is found to have crossed the age of superannuation (i.e. 60 years) he will be retired after providing him due hearing.
The impugned order as a result is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms. Orders accordingly.