Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑527 of 1994, heard on 26th August, 1980.

‑‑ Notice‑Pasting of a notice on Notice Board of establishment --Deemed to be a notice to all employees.

‑‑Retirement‑Can be construed as a form of termination‑‑Retire ment at age of 55 years of age a long practice of establishment‑ Agreement with C. B. A further containing mention accordingly‑‑ Such age of retirement indicated in notice appearing for sufficient time on notice board of establishment‑, Retirement on attaining such age, held, not exceptionable‑West E Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O, 12 (3) (i).

M. M. Jillani for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 26th August, 1980.

The appellant, who was employed as a Senior Assistant in the respondent establishment was retired from service with effect from 25th January, 1979, on attaining the age of 55 years vide respondent's letter dated 24th December, 1978. The appellant challenged his retirement orders by way of a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. His first grievance petition was made before he had actually retired from service but he withdrew the same and filed a second grievance petition on 24th January, 1979, the day preceding from which his retirement became effective. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that there is long practice in the respondent company to retire employees on attaining the age of 55 years, secondly, that notice fixing the retirement age at 55 had been pasted by the respondent‑Company on the notice board of the Company and due intimation of the said notice was given to the employees, thirdly, that the age of retirement was fixed in accordance with the settlement reached with the C.B.A. and that finally the appellant's grievance petition was not maintainable as he has served no grievance notice upon his employer after his retirement became effective.

2. It is not disputed that there was a settlement between the respon dent‑Company and the C.H.A. therein on 9th September, 1974, which among other matters covered the question of retirement of the employees of the Company. Article 28 of this Agreement at Serial No. 43 reads as follows :‑‑

"After prolonged discussion it was agreed to drop this demand and the existing retirement age of 55 years would continue."

3. There is also evidence to show that a 'General Notice' was pasted by the respondent Company an. its Notice Board from 1956 upto 1972 specifically stating that the age of retirement in the Company has been fixed at 55 years of age. The maintenance of such 'Notice Board' and the pasting of notices thereon is provided under the Standing Orders and} consequently pasting of a notice on such notice board for a sufficient time would ordinarily be deemed to be notice to all the employees of they contents of the notice. In pursuance of the general policy of retirement of its employees on attaining the age of superannuation, as many as 42 employs of the Company have been retired on attaining the age of 55 years. The names of these officers have been given and hence this fact is not in dispute. It, thus, appears that not only there is a long‑standing practice prevailing in the respondent‑Company to retire employees on attaining the age of 55 years but this practice was specifically brought to the notice of the employees by means of a notice which was displayed on the company's notice board for several years. The practice is further fortified by a settlement with the C.B.A. As provided in subsection (12) of section 22, I.R.O., the C.B.A has the right to undertake collective bargaining with the employer on matters connected with the employment, non‑employment and the terms and conditions of employment of workers and to represent all or any workmen in any proceedings. It was, there fore, competent for the C.B.A. to enter into an agreement regarding the fixation of the age of retirement of workmen and such agreement would be binding on all the workmen in the establishment. Similar view was expressed by this Tribunal in the case of Aftab Ahmed Siddiqui v. Messrs Glaxo (Pakistan) Ltd., decided on 16th March, 1980. Incidentally the latter decision is in respect of the very same Company in which the present issue of age of retirement has arisen. M. M. Jillani, the learned representative of the appellant, sought to argue that since no age of retirement had been mentioned in the appellant's letter of appointment therefore he was entitled to continue in the employment of the respondent. Company till he was physically fit to perform the duties of his office. He further contended that the settlement with the C.B.A. was not binding on the appellant and could not alter his rights under his terms of appointment. In the first place, the letter of appointment is silent as to the age of retirement, As such it cannot be said, at least on the basis of the said letter, that the appellant was entitled to continue in the employment of respondent company till he was physically able to perform his duties. It is possible that over the years there may be change in the conditions of work in the respondent company. Some sections may be closed and others opened rendering the services of the appellant redundant or surplus or he may not be found suitable for the new types of work in the company. It can hardly be denied that in any of these circumstances the com pany would be reasonably justified in terminating the appellant's services in accordance with the law though the letter of his appointment makes no mention of such circumstances.

4. Clauses (1) and (3) of Standing Order 12 empower an employer to terminate the services of even a permanent workman subject to the conditions that one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice is given to the employees, the order of termination is in writing and it explicitly states the reasons for the termination of services. Retirement can be construed as a form of termination of services. In the instant case, all the requirements for the termination of service have been fulfilled. Moreover, the retirement, as already pointed out, is in accordance not only with long standing practice but also in conformity with the settlement made with the C.B.A.

5. For the above reasons I see no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.

Appeal 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.