Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 141 of 1972, decided on 27th January 1973.

-

- S. 34-Retirement-Appointment letter of worker not mentioning age of retirement as 55 years-No agreement of service executed at time of worker's appointment-No condition of retirement having been mentioned in terms of service rule subsequently made regarding retire ment at age of 55 year, held not binding on worker, unless worker opted to such rule.

A. M. Qureshi for Petitioner.

A. A. Sharif for the Management.

Yaqoob Van Coolee has applied under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969, for his re-instatement. His case is that in the terms of service it was not provi ded that he would be retired at the age of 55 years or that afterwards the age of retirement could not be fixed, therefore, his retirement at the age of 55 yeas effected on Ist April, 1972 is illegal.

Mr. S. A. Malik Branch Manager R. W. 1 has admitted that in the appointment letter of the petitioner it was not mentioned that his age of retirement would be 55 years. He also admits that no agreement of service was executed at the time of the appointment of the petitioner. So it is clear that in the terms of service there was no condition of retirement. R. W. 1 has stated that age of retirement was fixed as 55 years when the company was formed but no such rule or order has been produced. R 2 letter was issued but on a subsequent date i.e. 1st March, 1954, whereas the petitioner joined service in 1948. If a new rule is made, it may apply to the persons employee after its promulgation but It cannot apply to the incumbents employed before its enforcement unless they have opted to it. R. W. 1 has stated in cross-examination that he do-s not know if option of the petitioner was obtained when R 2 was issued. No written option of the petitioner has been pro duced. Since R 2 is not applicable to the petitioner and his retirement is not warranted by any rule.

Standing Order 12 has granted a right to the petitioner to remain in service unless his service is terminated with one month's notice or on pay ment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. This reasonable ground is not the case of the respondent nor there any evidence to the effect that one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice was given to the petitioner.

As a result of the observation made above the application is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be re-instated. He will remain in service till he is declared unfit for duty.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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