| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 1418 1987 SLD 1418 1987 PLC 893 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. Suk.105 of 1985, decided on 18th December, 1986.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. Suk.105 of 1985, decided on 18th December, 1986.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
UMAR DIN
VS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATED CEMENT ROHRI CEMENT WORK, ROHRI and another
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- --Ss.25-A & 38(3)--Retirement--Worker's age got determined by respondent establishment through Medical Officer at time of his appointment to which he took no objection till his retirement--Worker admitting that after retirement he approached Civil Surgeon on his own accord and got himself examined for purpose of age which was determined less than what was in his service record--Neither details of examination of worker given in certificate issued by Civil Surgeon nor Civil Surgeon was put in evidence by worker before Labour Court for cross-examination by respondent establishment--Grievance petition of worker against order of his retirement, held, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court in circumstances. Manzar Alam for Appellant. Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1986. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 26-2-1985, passed by the Labour Court NO.VII, Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A I. R.O. 1969. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant was working with the respondent est4blishment as Motor Driver Grade IV and according to him, at that time, when his age was 55 years and the total length of service was of 18 years, he was, of retired from service, vide Order, dated 1-9-1984. That, as there was no documentary proof in regard to his actual age, available with the respondent establishment, therefore, he got himself examined by the civil surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sukkur, who had issued him a certificate, dated 25-10-1984 to the effect that he was about 55 years of age. Thereafter, he protested to the respondent and establishment against his premature retirement and subsequently served a grievance notice and then a grievance petition before the Labour Court. 3. The case of the respondent establishment was that when the appellant was appointed as Helper on 4-11-1966, he did not produce any proof of his age and date of birth, so for maintaining proper record under the Law, the appellant was got examined by the Medical Officer of the respondent establishment, who determined the age 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