Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute- --Age--.Date of birth---Alteration.--Employer claimed that original date of birth of employee which in fact was 16-10-1930 had been altered in service book unnoticed by 24-3-1934---Employer on basis of such alteration had stated that as according to original date of birth, employee was to retire in 1990, but due to such unnoticed alteration in date of birth he continued to work up to 1994, his service beyond 1990 should be treated as re-employment---Employer could not produce any contract or order of re-employment after retirement of employee--Burden was on employer to prove that original date of birth in service book of employee had been altered unnoticed, but employer could not produce proof of age of employee either in Court or in service book which was alleged to have been altered.--Further, alteration in date of birth of employee, thus was not possible in absence of any other proof. Naziruddin Qazi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1995. DECISION Heard Mr. Naziruddin Qazi for the appellant K.DA. The only point in this case, is regarding the date of superannuation of the respondent who was working as a tracer in the K.D.A. At the time of entry in service his date of birth mentioned in the service book was 24-3-1934. This entry was…

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