Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. QSA‑298 of 1983/Pb., decided on 12th June, 1984.
‑‑ S. 2 (xxviii)‑Workman‑Retirement‑Claim of back benefits Medical Board on examining workman certifying his age as 55/56 years but employer arguing that it should be taken as 56 years instead of 55 years ‑ Benefit, held, in such circumstances always goes to worker‑Lower Court rightly held age of worker as 55 years.
Javed Altaf for Appellants.
M. A. Hameed Awan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th June, 1984.
The appeal titled above arises from the decision, dated 7th May, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, directing that the respondent would retire in 1988.
2. The respondent was informed that he would retire on 25th January, 1983 on the basis of medical‑ certificate Exh. R‑6. He challenged the notice. The learned lower. Court got the respondent medically examined by the Medical Board of the Services Hospital, which issued certificate Exh. P‑5 to the effect that his age was 55/56 years on 2nd March, 1983, the date on which the Board examined him. As Exh. R‑6 is the report of a single doctor, whereas Exh. P‑5 was issued by the Board, so the learned lower Court is justified in relying upon the latter document. It has also been argued that the age of the respondent be taken as 56 years and not 55. Benefit always goes to the worker in such circumstances, so the learned lower Court has rightly held the age of the respondent as 55 years on 2nd March, 1983.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no grievance notice was served by the respondent. Exh. P‑4 is a representation made by the respondent. Receipt of this document is admitted in the written statement. No doubt, the respondent disowned his thumb‑impres sion on Exh. P‑4 but when even an educated person is not in a position to identify his thumb‑impression, how an illiterate person can do so. Exh. P‑4 serves the purpose of a valid grievance notice and from its date the grievance petition is within time. So, the objection is over ruled.
4. As a result, I hold that the learned lower Court has rightly held that the respondent would retire on 20th March, 1988. The appeal, consequently, is dismissed.
M. Y. M.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer