' The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-7-1994, rendered by the learned Labour Court No,1, Lahore, presided over then by Ch. Masood Akhter Khan, following being the relevant facts:-
2. Muhammad Hanif joined service with the Punjab Road Transport Corporation on 6-5-1964 as Driver and was in the year 1974 promoted as Driver Instructor. At the time of filling in the pro forma for his first entry into Government service, Exh.R-1, he gave his date of birth as 12-10-1931 and was accordingly retired on 12-10-1991, vide letter Exh.P-4/R-2, having been issued on 18-5-1991. The actual retirement order, Exh.R-3, by which he wal struck off the strength of P.R.T.C. Was passed on 9-10-1991, by virtue of which he stood relieved on 12-10-1991. He maintains that a few months before the actual date of his retirement he became aware of the error in his date of birth and the correct date of birth carried in the military discharge certificate, being 10-8-1934, on the strength of which he was to retire on attaining the age for superannuation on 10-8-1994. He wanted a clarification in that behalf from the Army Authorities and moved an application on 21-3-1990 to the Army Core Centre, Naushera. The Army people made a verification vide letter Exh.P-2 that his date of birth was 10-8-1934. The PRTC people wanted to satisfy themselves in regard to the actual date of birth of Muhammad Hanif and a letter, Exh.P-8, was addressed by them 25-8-1991 to the Army Core Centre, Naushehra, which Centre, on 2-9-1991, Exh.P-9, verified the petitioner's version, which, however, was not believed by the P.R.T.C. People, who proceeded to retire the petitioner with effect from 12-10- 1991, as already said.
3. The Director Operations, P.R.T.C., Egerton Road, Lahore was approached by the petitioner, through appeal dated 24-5-1991, Exh.P-5, which was not decided and the decision Exh.P-6 was communicated to Muhammad Hanif, on 19-10-1991, subsequent to the grievance petition having been filed on 15-10-1991, the grievance notice Exh.P-7, having been served on the employer about two months therebefore, on 25-8-1991.
4. Muhammad Hanif's grievance petition was resisted by the respondents before the Labour Court, appellants herein, on a number of grounds, which have all been dealt with by the learned Labour Court ably and properly, I must say. It has been held that despite Muhammad Hanif having been serving the Corporation as Driver Instructor, and having been delivering lectures to the concerned people, he did not cease to be a workman, and as such the Labour Court was not divested of its jurisdiction in the matter. Relying on 1994 PLC 1 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab) and 1991 PLC 801 (Lahore High Court), it was. Held that premature retirement having adversely effected the vested right of the employee, he was entitled to an opportunity of hearing, and rules of justice and equity required that benefit of doubt in the matter of age be given to the employee and contradictory record of age be ignored, particularly if the principle of 'audi alteram partem' has been violated.
Employer's objections against the employee's locus standi and subsistence of his guaranteed right were held to have no force, and the grievance notice, followed by the grievance petition, were found by the Court below not to be barred by the law of limitation.
5. It cannot be denied that the employee had been taking steps for correction of his date of birth, although apparently he had done it towards the fag end of his service. Not only he addressed his previous employer in the Army, his subsequent employer, namely, the P.R.T.C., also sought clarification from the Army Authorities about his actual date of birth as borne by the record maintained by the Army people. Documents Exhs.P-1 to P-11 would be relevant for scrutiny of claim of the employee about having made frantic efforts for correction of his date of birth. This included his departmental appeal, Exh.P-5, and rejection thereof, Exh.P-6, having been conveyed to the employee after he had approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. This was in addition to his passport, Exh. P-12, and the particulars supplied by him to the State Life Insurance Company, Exhs.P-13 and P-14. The retirement orders were passed on 18-5-1991 and were received by the employee on 20-5-1991. He served a grievance notice upon the employer on 25-8-1991, that is with a neligible delay of a few days. He stood practically retired from service on 12-10-1991 and on 15-10-1991 he filed the grievance petition, the relieving order (Exh.P.4) having been passed on 18-5- 1991. It cannot be said that the grievance notice was either premature or time-barred keeping in view the circumstances of the case. It is urged by the P.R.T.C. People that the proper time for correction of date of birth for the employee was within two years of his entry into service and he should have gone to the Civil Court under section 9, C.P.C. It is also maintained that he could not possibly remain ignorant of his actual date of birth, having been entered in the record, when he was taken into service of P.R.T.C. And that he was bound by the certificate, according to which, he had himself given his date of birth as 12-10-1931, which made him superannuated on 11-10-1991 and he could not possibly wriggle out of his commitment in the matter. It, however, appears that he had, without application of mind, given to the P.R.T.C. Authorities, his date of birth as 12-10-1931, which might have been entered as such by the concerned clerk, A either through inadvertence, or in a mala fide manner. This could well have been done by guess work and the employee signed the pro forma in a manner of excitement, without verification of his necessary particulars. It has been held in 1989 PLC 605 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab), as also in 1988 PLC 323 and 1983 PLC 437 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh) that if the departmental appeal of the employee remains undecided or its decision is delayed, the objection about the grievance notice and the grievance petition being time-barred would not be valid and the limitation would run from the date of communication of decision on appeal, rather than from the date of awareness of the employee about an adverse entry against him. In 1984 PLC 56 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab) it was pronounced that if there was available no better and concrete evidence, presence of army discharge certificate should be given preference, and the plea of an employee about his actual age or date of birth should not be repelled in a superficial or rudimentary manner. In response to Muhammad Hanif's letter, Exh.P-8, the Army Authorities had informed him vide letter Exh.P-9 that his date of birth, as occurring in the army record, was 10-8-1934. The P.R.T.C. People themselves made a reference in that behalf to the Army Authorities. They were told in clear terms that Muhammad Hanif's date of birth was 10-81934. It was then indeed intriguing as to why was his plea about his actual date of birth not believed by the P.R.T.C. People and as to why they stuck to their version that his date of birth, as given by him on his entry into P.R.T.C's. Service being 12-10-1931, was a genuine claim, which admitted of no variation. Muhammad Hanif having been making applications/ representations/appeals to the higher officers of the P.R.T.C., for correction of his date of birth, it could, in no manner, be assumed that he had made a move in the matter rather late in the day and was prevented from reiterating his stand that he was actually born on 10-8-1934 and not on 12-10-1931, and his date of superannuation fell on 9-8-1994 instead of 11-10: 1991. This being the factual and legal position, supported in clear and concrete terms by Muhammad Hand's passport and insurance documents Exhs.P-12 to P-14, the order of the learned Labour Court made to the effect that Muhammad Hanif would stand retired on 9-8-1994, instead of 1 1 th or B 12th of October, 1991, must be taken to be sound and must be endorsed by this Tribunal. The appeal filed by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.