Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1162 1984 SLD 1162 1984 PLC 431
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-208 of 1983, decided on 25th February, 1984,
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLAT TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD HAYAT

VS

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute--- -----Date of birth-Age-Certificate of Doctor on basis of general appearance-Cannot be treated as expert opinion-Age determined on basis of X-rays of bones has evidentiary value. Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant. S. Intisar Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing : 19th February, 1984. JUDGMENT In this appeal the decision, dated 26th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re­instatement in service was dismissed. 2. The appellant was a Foreman Grade-II. On 28th September, 1981 notice of retirement was issued informing him that he would stand retired on 11th October, 1981. Before this he had been charge-sheeted for tampering with his service book by changing the date of birth from 12th October, 1921 to 12th October, 1924 and stealing away his h1story sheets. A Board of Enquiry was constituted. 3. The appellant challenged the notice of retirement in a grievance petition. However, in the pendency of the said petition he was retired. The dispute is regarding the date of birth. According to the appellant, he was to retire on 10th October, 1984, and thus was prematurely retired on 11th October, 1981. The appellant relies upon the medical certificate Exh. P. 1 and service record. As mentioned above, the age given in the service record is tampered with and this fact will be dis­cussed presently. So far as Exh. P. 1 is concerned, firstly the age given is on the basis of general appearance and thus cannot be said to be the opinion of an expert. Any person can give the age by general appearance. If a doctor gives the age on this ground, he does so like an ordinary person and not as an expert. If age is determined on the basis of X-rays of bones etc. it has some evidentiary value. Secondly, it is not stated on what date the age of the appellant was 20 years. Usually by general appearance age is given on the date of examination. The appellant, according to Exh. P. I, was examined on 22nd March, 1975 meaning thereby that his age was 20 years on the said date. If this document is relied upon, then the appellant was born on 22nd…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492