DECISION The appellant had served in the Army from 13-7-1948 up to 12-10-1976 when he had retired. His date of birth on the record of the army was 13-7-1930. On the 30th of May, 1978 he had joined the respondents as Security Supervisor.
2. On or about the 23rd of February, 1980 he had received a letter from the respondents informing him that he will be reaching the age of superannuation on 30-6-1988 and he will be well advised to avail his due earned leave before retirement.
3. He had stirred into activity and having obtained a birth certificate and a school leaving certificate from Chakwal, from where he hailed which showed his birth date as 29-12-1934, he had started making representations to the authorities for the necessary correction. This was rejected and he was duly retired thereafter on the due date. The appellant had thereafter sent a grievance notice and filed the petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed.
4. Admittedly in his service book with the Army Authorities the date of his birth is 13-7-1930. The National Identity Card also bears that date. He started getting the benefits available to him under the Employees Old Age Benefit Scheme on that basis.
5. He says that he had started the search for the correct date of birth in 1989. The birth certificate provides a very interesting reading. Column No.9 of the certificate pertains to the name of person furnishing the information of the birth, and it is no other person than Zamarrud Khan the appellant himself. The next column indicates the date when the entry was made and that is dated 31-5-1989.
All that speaks for itself. Even the school leaving certificate is in the photostat and nobody has been examined in support of this piece of evidence. There is no explanation as to what has happened to the original. It mentions that he had studied there upto the 8th Class. He testified that he had joined the army service only at the age of 14. He must have really been a very preconscious child indeed for these attainments. The question whether he could find an opening in the army at that age is a separate question.
6. I am afraid the entire testimony is just a tissue of lies. According to the record he had joined the army at the age of 18. He states that he had made a false statement advancing the age by 4 years to qualify for the job. He had also no compunction in accepting the benefits under the Employees Old Age Benefits Scheme on the basis of the age on the army record. Obviously he has taken to all these stratagems including obtaining a new National Identity Card to prolong his stay with the respondents and has resorted to questionable means to gain that object.
7. The Labour Court had also found that his office was of a supervisory nature, but it is not necessary to examine the same any more. There is no merit in the appeal. I will, therefore, dismiss it.