Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute-- ---Age--Date of birth--Document signed by workman indicating date of birth--Signatures admitted by workman without stating that entry was wrong--Superannuation retirement on basis of such entry of date of birth upheld. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant. Farooq Zaman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1985. JUDGMENT The decision, dated 4-3-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the learned lower Court found that the respondent would attain the age of 60 years on 27-5-1987. 2. Previously the case was remanded for redecision after getting the respondent medically examined for his age on the basis of X-Ray report and other tests. The report is that according to X-Ray result the age is between 50 and 60 years. Again no definite opinion has been expressed. However, previously my attention was not drawn to Exhs. R-1 and R-2. The respondent in cross-examination admitted his, signatures on these documents and thus he is bound by the date of birth given therein. Exh.R-1 is dated as 16-4-1974 and age is given therein as 51 years and ten months. According to this document, the respondent reached the age of superannuation on 16-6-1982. In Exh.R-2 the date of birth is given as 6-6-1922. According to this document, the age of retirement was 6-6-1982. In the presence of the admission of these documents, there remains no controversy about tile date of birth The respondent while admitting his signatures on Exhs. R-1 and lt-2 did not say that his age was wrongly given therein. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the pendency of the…

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