Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. GA‑751 of 1984, decided on 16th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Termination of service on allegation that wrong date of birth mentioned at time of appointment and workman was actually over aged at that time‑‑Allegation of intimating wrong date not proved‑ Age if given correctly, termination would not be justified and rather it would be taken that rules regarding age may have been relaxed Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re‑instatement to appellant workman.
Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant.
Muhammad Yasin Qazi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
The decision, dated 10‑11‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for being re‑instated in service was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that the grievance notice was time‑barred.
2. The appellant was employed as tubewell operator on 6‑10‑1978, vide appointment order Exh. P.A. His services were terminated on 5‑9‑1981 on the ground that he had given his age wrongly at the time of his appointment and that he had already become overage.
3. The learned lower Court has wrongly held that the grievance notice was time‑barred. The order of termination was sent in envelope Exh. R‑8 but the report of refusal to accept the letter does not bear the signatures of the postman, nor any date is given under the report. Since the service of order of termination does not stand proved from a date from which grievance notice may be said to be time‑barred, it cannot be said that actually it was time‑barred.
4. The allegations made against the appellant were not established. The appellant denied his signatures on application Exh. R‑1 and deposed that he had not produced certificate Exh. R‑2. So far as Exh. R‑1 is concerned, it does not contain date of birth or age. The allegation is that the appellant was overage and he gave his date of birth wrongly. Since in Exh.R‑1 no date of birth is given, the document is immaterial. No doubt, in Exh. R‑1 it is mentioned that the appellant was Matriculate but no rule has been shown or copy brought on the record that minimum qualification for the post of tubewell operator is Matric. So the document is irrelevant. So far as Exh.R‑2 is concerned, the date of birth given therein is 10‑3‑1954. So is the case with Exh.R‑4. It is mentioned in Exh.R‑2 that the date of birth was entered in this document from the admission form. Admission form is always filled in and signed by the candidate. School leaving certificate Exh.R‑H shows that the date of birth of the appellant is 10‑3‑1950. In the service record too the date of birth is given as 10‑3‑1950 but this document was not proved from any witness. It was not put to the appellant, nor any R.W. said that it. was bearing the signatures of the appellant. It was to be proved that date of birth was :giver by the appellant wrongly at the time of getting service, but there is no evidence on the point. As mentioned above, in Exh.R‑2, no doubt, wrong date of birth is given but there is no evidence that Exh.R‑2 was produced by the appellant. R.W.1 did not say so. So far as Exh.R.4‑A is concerned, there is no evidence that in the register the date of birth was given from any application given by the appellant. No employee of the Employment Exchange was examined to state that the appellant had disclosed his date of birth as 10‑3‑1950. So the allegation that the appellant had at the time of entering into service given his date of birth as 10‑3‑1954, does not stand proved. If the age was given correctly then the respondent was not justified in terminating his services. Rather it would be taken that the rules may have been relaxed. The respondent may have proved the allegation but its case was not properly handled. The appellant's grievance petition was thus wrongly dismissed by the learned lower Court.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. He is not entitled to back benefits as he did not say that he remained jobless after the termination of his services by the respondent.
A.B. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer