Gulzar Ahmad was retired from service purportedly on attainment of age of superannuation on 12- 12-1992; and he filed a grievance petition on 14-4-1993, under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His petition was on 16-12-1993 dismissed by the learned Labour Court; and he has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. Gulzar Ahmad had been appointed as Greaser by the Director Soil Conservation, Murree Road, Rawalpindi, on 13-9-1975 (Exh.P.1). The document Exh.P.2 indicates that he could not get his pay for the months of December, 1992 and January, 1993, when he was working as Buldozer Operator. He represented to the Agriculture Engineer, Jhelum, for his continuance in service, stating that he had not yet completed 60 years of age. He appended with the application dated 2-2-1993 (Exh.P.2) his birth entry (Exh.P.3), giving his date of birth as 30-1-1939. His representation/appeal was, however, rejected, vide order dated 28-2-1993, passed by the Agriculture Engineer, Jhelum (Exh.P.4). An intimation in that behalf was given to Gulzar Ahmad on 29-3-1993, as per Exh.P.5. Gulzar Ahmad, however, again on 13-4-1993 told the Agriculture Engineer, Jhelum, that he could not be retired before 30-1-1999 and also asked for payment of arrears of salary to him (Exh. P. 6).
3. Service record of Gulzar Ahmad Exh. R. 1 states his date of birth as 13-12-1932. The entry, on the face of it, however, appears to be of recent origin, the original entry indicating that his age was 42 years, at the the of his employment as per medical certificate. Now it is so well-known that on anybody's induction into Government service, he is asked to produce a medical fitness certificate, and for the purpose he appears before the Medical Superintendent, of the District, or any other Medical Officer deputed by him, and the primary purpose of issuance of such a certificate is an expert's statement about his medical fitness and mention of date of birth or age, in such certificate is only casual or collateral. It is generally based on guess work, if at the relevant the civil servant or the employee does not have in his possession any authentic proof about his age, say, matriculation certificate, or his birth entry. It is also a matter of common knowledge and experience that illiterate or semi-literate employees of the Government seldom care to check as to what age or date of birth has actually been scribed or entered in their service record. Their ignorance, in that regard, therefore, would he having no material significance.
4. When payment of salary of Gulzar Ahmad was, however, discontinued, he came to know, as a matter of certainty, that he was going to be retired, or had actually been retired, from service. This was done, in the instant case, with effect from 12-12-1992. It has not been shown or established on record as to why have the 'Authorities; or, for that matter, the learned Labour Court refused to accord any recognition to the birth entry, Exh.P.3, which otherwise must have been treated as authentic, as also conclusive proof of the age of Gulzar Ahmad. He was born on 30-1-1939, and the important event was reported to the custodian of the Register, or the Chowkidar of the Village, on 5-2-1939. I do not think, the entry suffered from any suspicion. It has been held by superior Courts, in a number of A reported cases, that if there is any doubt about the factum of age of an employee, the entry beneficial to the employee or the worker ought to be given preference. It has also been opined that statement about age of a civil servant, or an employee of a corporate body, made at the the of initial recruitment, or his medical examination, must not be given conclusive importance.
5. True, as was circulated by the Government on 4-9-1975 (Ah.R.3), to years the has been given to a Government servant for making a move for correction of his date of birth. In the impugned judgment, there is also mention of another policy letter dated 13-11-1984, having been circulated, on the subject, by the Government. I would, however, be least overwhelmed by these circulars/letters of the Government the reason being that in the present case Gulzar Ahmad has been in possession of a clear and correct proof about his actual age in the shape of birth entry (Exh.P.3), which B cannot be discarded on any valid premises. I will give due recognition to the fact that Gulzar Ahmad was an illiterate person, who only knew how to drive a Bulldozer, and was not expected to be aware of the policy letters of the Government, reference to which has been made above. It will always be prudent on the part of the 'Authorities' to make the employees of the Government, especially low-paid and illiterate, occasionally aware of their date of birth, as entered in their service record. As a matter of policy -the employees should be kept informed of their respective ages or dates of birth after every 2/3 years. Gulzar Ahmad is a poor and simple villager and must not be prevented from completing his. 60 years of age. His date of superannuation as per Exh.P.3, the authentic entry of his birth will fall on 29-1-1999, before which he would not be liable to retirement. He must, therefore, be enabled to complete his retirement age of 60 years and must also not be divested of his dues.
6. Consequent upon the above discussion I would allow his appeal and would set aside the impugned judgment dated 16-12-1993, rendered by the: Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi. As the respondents were not wholly at fault for ordering his retirement on 12-12-1992, I will leave the parties to bear their respective costs of the litigation.