DECISION ' As disclosed in the grievance petition, the appellant's case is that on 16-1-1995 he was employed as Winder in the respondent's mill at Kotri. After about one and half years, on 8-8-1996 when he reported for duty as usual, he was not allowed to enter the Mills Premises on the plea that he was a child. Thereafter, he got himself examined by Dr. Barkatullah Shaikh who had issued him Certificate on 9-8-1996 to the effect that he was 16 years of age. He produced the said Certificate as a proof that he was no longer a child. The other allegation against the appellant was that he stayed away from duty for ten days without leave. He was charge-sheeted on this account but he did not face the domestic enquiry. He was ultimately dismissed from service. Even according to medical certificate he had produced he was minor and, therefore, could not be retained in service. He was constrained to send grievance notice, dated 23-9-1996 by Registered Post with acknowledgement due. The respondents having failed to redress the applicant's grievance inasmuch as that he was not reinstated in service with all back-benefits, he had filed grievance petition which was dismissed by Labour Court No,VI Hyderabad by order, dated 13-10-1999. Hence he has filed this appeal against the said order of dismissal.
2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Shaikh Wahid Bux Representative of the appellant and Mr. N.A.
Talpur learned counsel for the respondents and perused the relevant record with their assistance.
3. Two points that fall for determination are:--
(1) Whether the appellant was a minor at the time of his appointment; and
(2) Whether appellant had remained absent from duty without leave.
4. In support of his case the appellant has filed his affidavit-inevidence on which he was cross- examined by the respondent's counsel. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Kausar Labour Welfare Officer has filed his affidavit-in-evidence on behalf of the respondents. He too was cross-examined on his evidence in the affidavit.
5. So far the first point is concerned there is no serious controversy. In his application for employment appearing at R/4, the appellant had given his age to be 18 years. But when his said age was disputed he himself approached the Medical Officer Dr. Barkatullah Shaikh who issued him a Certificate of age vide A/1 at page 15 showing therein that he was 16 years of age obviously on 9-8-1996, the date of issuance of the Certificate. But somehow the Doctor mentioned in the Certificate that the said Certificate was not valid for medico-legal purpose. It is not understood why he made such endorsement on the Certificate. One thing is clear from the Certificate that the said Doctor was not himself sure of the appellant's age particularly when he had not determined his age by process of ossification which is the only authentic process recognized in medical field for this purpose. Though safe reliance cannot be placed on the said Certificate, yet in absence of any other evidence with regard to appellant's age the Medical Certificate produced and relied upon by the appellant himself has got to be taken into consideration. The appellant's age according to the said certificate would be 14-1/2 years at the time of his appointment which cannot be held as his age of majority. Accordingly it is held that appellant was minor at the time of his appointment.
6. In this connection my attention has been invited to Government Circular produced at R/7 at page 39 of the lower Court's record which has impressed upon the Provincial Governments to ensure that the laws relating to child labour are strictly implemented, which in other words means that employment of children should be avoided. Since the appellant has been held to be minor at the time of his appointment he cannot be retained in service.
7. Apart from above the appellant was said to be absent without leave continuously for 10 days for which he was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet at R/9 page 46 of the lower Coda's record. The objection of the appellant's Representative however, was than the charge-sheet was not served on the appellant and as such ex parte enquiry held against him was not legal. It is the appellant's own admission in course of his cross-examination that when he came on 8th August, 1996 at the gate of the mills he had been stopped to enter the mills. Though this cannot be taken as proof of his having been stopped at the gate because he has produced no other evidence in this regard, yet even if it is believed it would mean that since that day he stayed away from the office. There is nothing in his affidavit that on being stopped at the gate he made complaint to any Officer of the Company nor sent any such complaint by post. Conversely if he is believed that he was all along present, the question of non-service of show-cause notice/charge-sheet and the information with regard to domestic enquiry on him would not arise. Accordingly I endorse the findings of the learned Labour Court that the appellant has produced no evidence oral or documentary in rebuttal of the respondents evidence that he remained absent from duty from 8-8-1996 to 20-8-1996. Even if charitable view is taken that the allegation of absence without leave has not been proved against the appellant, he would still not be retained in service on account of being minor in violation of the relevant law pointed out earlier. But I must say that even the charge of absence without C leave has also been brought home to the appellant and as such his dismissal on both counts namely minor age as well as absence without leave is perfectly in order and, therefore, I endorse the same.
' As a result of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.