Extension of employment after the extension of employment The discretion of employees cannot be claimed by the Complaint Petition before the Labor Court Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Section 25A.
Industrial dispute‑
‑‑Superannuation‑Extension of service after superannuation age---Discretion of employer‑Not a right‑Cannot be claimed by grievance petition before Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.
Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.
Khalid Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 30th January. 1983.
JUDGEMENT This appeal is directed against the decision dated 29th August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the application of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed.
2. Exh. P‑1 is the notice of retirement. Vide Exh. P‑2 the ,appellant was informed that the retirement will take effect from 12th January, 1981. The respondents relied upon the service record of the appellant, according to which, he had completed the age of 55 years. The appellant, however, presented two certificates before the respondents. According to Exh. P‑9 dated 6th July, 1980 the age was declared by the doctor as 47 years. The other certificate is Exh. P‑14 dated 27th March, 1976, which suggests that his age was 43 years at that time. The age according to both the certificates comes out to be the same i. e. 47 years in July, 1980. But those certificates are not reliable as they are based upon general appearance. No X‑rays of bones were taken before issuing the said certificates. Before the learned lower Court the appellant produced school leaving certificate also in which the date .of birth is given as 10th December, 1933. The .appellant should have challenged the age given in his service record in a civil Court and got a declaration. He wanted to prove before the lower Court that the date of his birth was 10th December, 1933 and the one given in his service record was wrong. He should have summoned the school record from which the certificate Exh. P‑l0 was prepared. In the original school record some interpolation may have been made. It is, therefore, unsafe to rely upon Exh. P‑10 without the pursuant of the original record. The presumption is that the date of birth given in the school record was given by the appellant. His parent department has no service record to know about his date of birth. To falsify the entries of service record the onus was very heavily upon the appellant which he has failed to discharge. His correct date of birth is, therefore, that which is given in his service record which was prepared when there was no question of retirement.
3. According the WAPDA Act of 1979; the regular age of super annuation is 55 years but the competent authority has the power to grant extension up to 60 years. The competent authority has not considered the appellant fit for extension as he has been retired in' the public interest. Extension is not a eight for which one can fight in law Courts. It was the discretion of the employer to retain the appellant in service after he had completed the age of 55 years; but the appellant had no right to be retained.
4. As a result of the observations. made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.
Appeal dismissed.
