Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑71 of 1985, heard on 5th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑Retirement‑‑Grievance petition against retirement‑‑Karachi Transport Corporation workers governed by Rules of Corporation providing superannuation age as 55 years with discretion to Corporation to extend service upto age of 60 years‑‑Driver retired on attaining superannuation age of 55 years‑‑Retirement order challenged in grievance petition on plea that discretion in not allowing extension of service was not used properly‑‑In matters of discretion fitness of Driver, held, would be considered and driving being a delicate job not only sharpness of mind but agility with which his body moves has to be considered‑‑Plea of Corporation that retirement having been made on superannuation no legal or vested right had been violated and as such grievance petition was not maintainable‑‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal and Driver having crossed age of 55 years, held, was rightly retired.

1980 P L C 180 and 1979 P L C at 275.

Abdul Monem Khan for Appellant.

Azmatuilah Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th February, 1986.

DECISION

Imam Bux, Driver of Karachi Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal against an order passed by I9th Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 15‑1‑1985. The facts enunciated in the arguments of the learned representative of the appellant are that Imam Bux being Driver was in the employment of Karachi Transport Corporation, vide appointment order, dated 30‑1‑1969, attained the age of 55 years and was retired from service on 10‑7‑1984, when he was nearly 56 years of age. This retirement took place in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of Road Transport Corporation. Grievance petition was filed to contend the issue that he did not attain the age of retirement, i.e. 55 years, as his date of birth is incorrect and that he had applied for change of date of birth. He further contended that there is no limit of age for retirement in Labour Laws, therefore, he ii entitled to be re‑instated with full sack benefits.

2. The plea of the respondent, Karachi Transport Corporation was that the age of retirement was 55 years and it was at the discretion of the Corporation to extend the age of 60 years either in instalments or at once. It was contended that at the time of joining the Corporation, i.e. on 30‑i‑1969, the appellant has produced the only document, namely, the Discharge Certificate of the Army, which shows that on 24‑1‑1947, the appellant joined the Army at the age of 18 years and was discharged from Army on 20‑1‑1968, i.e. after serving the Army for 21 years, 10 months and 26 days, attaining the total age of 39 years, 10 months and 26 days. Therefore, on 10‑7‑1984, he was more than 55 years of age. Hence, no legal or vested right under any law, agreement or award was violated and as such the grievance petition was not maintainable.

3. In the Labour Court, evidence was tendered. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Monem Khan for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan for the respondent Corporation.

4. Mr. Abdul Monem Khan contended that the exercise of the discretion was not done and the appellant was fit enough to be a Driver .for a further period upto 60 years. Further, he contended that the Labour Laws were silent as regards to the age of retirement. To this contention, the respondent Corporation replied that the Corporation has its own Rules. Regulation No. 19 which refers to the retirement lays down that the worker is to be retired at the age of 55 years in an ordinary course, but the appointing authority has a discretion to extend the, period of service upto the age of 60 years if it was desirable. In clause (4) of the contract of appointment, it is laid down that the employees would be governed by the General Rules and the instructions are issued or framed from time to time, as adopted or approved by the Road Transport Corporation. The appellant was bound by the said clause and was duly retired as per Regulation No.19.

5. It was contended by Mr. Abdul Monem Khan that the discretion was not used properly. In the matters of discretion, the fitness of a Driver is to be considered and his general health is got to be considered. Driving is a delicate job, where not only the sharpness of mind but B the agility with which his body moves is to be considered. The management did not find the fitness of Driver, Imam Bux, therefore, he was rightly retired.

6. The reference is made to 1980 P L C 180, wherein it was observed that, 'it is plain enough that the plea taken by the Karachi Transport Corporation was supported by Regulation No. 19 which fixes the age of retirement on 55 years and the appointing authority had a discretion. to extend the age upto 60 years in instalment or at once and, therefore, the retirement of a worker was not open to any exception. Another authority is relied upon by the Corporation and is apt and is reported in 1979 P L C at page 275, wherein it was held as under: ‑

"The basic question to be determined in this case is whether retirement of a workman on the basis of superannuation can be made a subject of adjudication in the Labour Court. I am of the view that retirement on the basis of superannuation has not been statutorily secured in regard to any definite age. The industrial managements have been left to their discretion to fix any age to be the superannuation age and if the retirement has been made according to that age then it is not challengeable under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969, or under any provision of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 because neither of the two enactments contain any provision fixing the age of retirement of an industrial worker and securing the right of superannuation in some comprehensive sense of the term. Under section 25‑A, I.R.O. a worker may bring his grievance to the Labour Court in respect of a right guaranteed or secured by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force and not in regard to any other right whatsoever by way of equitable justice or by analogy of the general rules of retirement observed in the field of public service. Accordingly I hold that the Court has no jurisdiction to go into the case of retirement of the petitioner directed by the respondent management on the basis of superannuation."

7. In view of the Law and the facts, I find that the appellant, Imam Bux has no case in appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

A. E. 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.