DECISION This appeal arises from order of the Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of one Abdul Majid respondent for alteration in his date of birth was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with all back benefits
2. The facts are that the respondent was initially employed by Trans Oceanic Steamship Company Limited as a fitter in the year 1959. His services were subsequently transferred to Pakistan National Shipping Corporation. The date of birth entered in his service record was in the year 1932 but the respondent afterwards claimed that he was born in the year 1938 and he was being prematurely retired.
3. The evidence regarding his age relied upon by the appellants as the date of his birth mentioned in his nomination application is 1932. The other piece of evidence is regarding the admission in his cross-examination that he passed the fifth class examination in the year 1942 that would show that if he joined the school at the age of 5 he passed fifth class at the age of ten and if he was born in 1932 he would have passed the fifth class in the year 1942.
4. According to the claim of the respondent his evidence consists of entry in the Identity Card. This was prepared three times when he was made adult. The Identity Card shows his date of birth as 1938 but it is a well---known fact that the Identity Card shows the age as declared by the applicant in his application. No investigation is made by the Registration Authorities to check the entries in the application for Identity Card. Even the age given in the Identity Card appears to have been tampered with. So, the entry in the Identity Card is of no consequence though it is relevant for the determination A of all the questions of age. The other piece of evidence produced by the respondent is that he married at the age of twenty in the year 1958 but he could have mentioned his age as twenty to be eligible to marry without the consent of guardian and that evidence is also not very authentic.
5. For the purpose of altering the date of birth in the record of service there should be very authentic and convincing evidence for the alteration, otherwise no alteration in the recorded age would be permissible. The age of the respondent by appearance now would be about eighty years and not 58 years as claimed by him. The question of alteration of the recorded age on the basis of Identity Card, therefore, does not arise.
6. The other question raised is regarding the maintainability which will be academic importance only. The respondent was a fitter and he came under the definition of worker, under the I.R.O. The Regulations of the PNSC would not be considered as Statutory Rules to override the General Rules as contained in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969. The grievance petition would therefore be maintainable.
7. Mr. M. Latif Saghar for the respondent has cited 1991 PLC 126 in which the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind held that the employees of PNSC were not excluded from the application of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 if an employee would show that he was a workman as defined under the I.R.O. He would then have a right to i0voke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
8. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh for P.N.S.C. Has on the other hand referred to an earlier decision of Karachi High Court reported in 1988 PLC 705 but this decision does not apply to the facts of this case. The ruling says the terms and conditions of service governed by Statutory Rules will supersede the Standing Orders but if there are only Regulations in violation of the Standing Orders such Regulations will not normally be enforceable as against Standing Orders Ordinance. That proposition of law cannot be disputed but it has not been shown in this case that the P.N.S.C.
Regulations are Statutory Regulations overriding the Standing Orders. In any case a fitter being a worker the provisions of the I.R.O. Would apply and the I.R.O. Has not been excluded by any rules.
9. In the result the order of the Labour Court allowing the correction of age is hereby set aside and the age as originally recorded is maintained. The respondent will stand retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31st December, 1991. However, he shall not be made to refund any difference in the pay and emoluments from that date already enjoyed by the respondent. Only the emoluments subsequent to this order shall be fixed by the employers. He will be paid his G.P. Fund and gratuity in full according to the rules as if he had retired from this date.