DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court whereby the petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, came to be dismissed. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The appellant came to be employed by the Pakistan Railways, the respondent No. 1, in 1955 as a Helper and the date of birth as disclosed by him came to be entered as 1930. He was also referred to the Medical Officer of the Railways and the age was found to be correct. He was retired on 30-6- 1990 on the completion of 60 years. It appears that he had made an application for receiving the pensionary benefits due to him on 15-7-1990.
3. However he gave a grievance notice on 21-7-1990 saying that at the time of recruitment the age given by him was 18 years and not 25 years, but no heed was paid to the same. Later he filed the Grievance Petition on 19-8-1990 before the Labour Court.
4. The petition came to be resisted by the respondent wherein it was inter alia said that it did not lie as he was a civil servant.
5. The petitioner was his own witness and Sain Dad, a U.D.C. Of the Railway appeared as a witness on behalf of Pakistan Railways.
6. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the retirement was in order, as the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and therefore dismissed the petition.
7. The appeal was admitted in 1992- and was being adjourned all along on the request of the parties. When it came up for hearing on 27-1-1994 again there were applications for adjournment from both the sides. As the matter was old, I had declined to accede to the request and had kept it for orders, with the observation that it would be open to the parties, if they so chose, to give brief arguments in writing within a week, Mr. M. Ishaq Abbasi, on behalf of the Railways, has taken advantage of the same.
8. Throughout the tenure of his service the appellant had never a word to drop about the inaccuracy of the age record with the respondents. All that he had got to say was that at the time of recruitment he had given his age as 18 years and not 25 years.
9. It was not denied by him that at the time he took up service he had been referred to the Medical Officer for examination, but his case is that it was certified to be 25 years of age. That is falsified by the certificate which had been duly produced on behalf of the respondents.
10. The version of the respondent is that he had been retired on 9-7-1990 and not on 30th June. Be that as it may. It was thereafter that he had applied for the payment of his outstanding dues and for the settlement of his pension.
11. In the face of this evidence the contention raised by the appellant is devoid of any merit. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.