Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 378 of 1974, decided on 24th January 1975.

-- Retirement-Fixation of superannuation age-Discretion of emplo yer-Medical fitness of workman after superannuation age-Does not fetter right of employer to retire a workman-Retirement on superannuation age-Does not create a cause of grievance to approach Labour Court - Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A.

1974LLC231fol.

Shoeb Zafar Rizvi for Appellant.

Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chatta for Respondent.

In Appeals Nos. 378, 379 and 383 of 1974, same question of law is involved, therefore, they are taken together.

[Messrs Rahimullah, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Abrahim were retired Patwaris. They were employed by Shakarganj Sugar Mills, Jhang, as Fieldmen, to look after the sugar cane crop in different areas. After about a year in April (1974, their services were terminated on the ground that the age of retirement was 55 years and they had attained more than that. age.

The above said employees filed separate petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re-instatement. The ground taken in their applications was that their ages were more than 55 years at the time of their employment and they could not be removed from services till they were fit to do work as Fieldmen.

The Junior Labour Court was of the view that the services of the employees were terminated on the basis of reaching of the age of superannuation and it was retirement and not termination and as such no ban could be imposed on the employer for retiring its employees on account of age. Reliance was placed by the Junior Labour Court on 1974 L L C 231. In all the appeals two grounds were taken to challenge the order of the lower, Court, firstly, that the appellants resumed their duties after their retirement from Government service and the employer knowing this fact gave appointment to them and any rules framed afterward were not applicable to the appellants: and secondly, that the appellants were medically fit for the job for which they were employed. There is nothing on record to show as to when any rule for retirement was framed by the Management. I am of the view that the Management was competent to fix the age of superannuation and it was not material when such a rule was framed. It was within the competency, of the employer to retire any of the employees who had attained the ages, of superannuation. In the present appeals all the appellants have attained, age more than 55 years and so the employer was competent to retire them. The appellants may be medically fit but it is within the discretion of their employer to say that on account of age they should be retired. No cause of any grievance arises in these cases. The lower Court rightly dismissed their petitions.

The appeals have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.