DECISION ' The appellants, Trustees of the Port of Karachi, had appointed respondent Hameedullah as a Crane Driver. At the time of his appointment the respondent did not have the proof of age recognised by the K.P.T. He was, therefore, examined by the Chief Medical Officer of K.P.T. According to the prevailing practice and his date of birth was recorded, according to the Medical opinion, as the year 1934. Long thereafter a settlement was signed between the collective bargaining agent and the K.P.T. In which it was agreed, that school leaving certificate in cases of non-matriculate, mentioning date of birth, would be sufficient proof of age and the same if not available at the time of appointment could he produced during the probationary period. Respondent Hameedullah made an application for extension of time to produce the authenticated School Leaving Certificate from India, which usually takes sufficiently long time, but no reply was received by him from the K.P.T. Ultimately he obtained the certificate and some other documents in proof of age and the certificate shows his date of birth to be 2-9-1939, duly attested by the Notary Public and High Commissioner for Pakistan. The K.P.T., however, rejected the petition of the respondent for the correction of his age in the Service Book on the ground that under the settlement such proof was to be produced within six months of the appointment and the collective bargaining agent has signed that settlement.
2. The age of a person is not a matter which can be finally settled by the employer on the basis of an agreement. The medical certificate of age gives only approximate age and there is always a margin of error depending upon the 'accuracy of the medical examination. In this case the medical certificate made the respondent older by four years than his actual age. He has, thus, been made to reach the age of superannuation four years earlier. It has, therefore, been rightly held by the Labour Court that in such settlement there can be no bar to the determination of the actual age of a workman and any amount of delay will not deprive him of this valuble right.
3. The order of the Labour Court is, therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed.