Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. FD‑663 of 1985, decided on 12th April, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against retirement‑‑Worker of Road Transport Board ordered to retire on attaining age of 55 years‑ Petition filed before actual retirement‑‑Labour Court passing stay order and coming to conclusion that superannuation age under Rules was 60 years and not 55 years, therefore, accepting petition with direction that petitioner not be retired before attaining age of 60 years‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Ch. Mahboob Alam for Appellant.
Nazir Ahmad Naz representative for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 12th April, 1986.
The decision dated 28‑10‑1985, recorded by the learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑instatement in service was accepted and he was directed not to be retired before attaining the age of 60 years.
2. The respondent was ordered to be retired w.e.f. 5‑3‑1986, vide order dated 30‑5‑1985 allowing him one year L.P.R. The respondent brought grievance petition on 11‑7‑1985 and obtained stay order with the result that he is continuing in service until now.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that age of retirement according to Regulation 19 of 1965 Regulations for the employees who are workers is 55 years and that rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules is not applicable to them as remarked by the P. R. T. B in it's 9th meeting held 30th June, 1980. I have already held in many A cases that according to the account of Rule 33.1 made in February, 1977 the age of superannuation for all employees of the Board is 60 years. One of those cases is Appeal No. FD‑324/85‑Pb. titled as 1P.R.T.B. through D. M., G. T. S. Depot No. 2, Faisalabad v. Noor Hassan Shah, decided on 9‑4‑1986. For the reason given in the said ruling, I hold that the learned lower Court has rightly directed that the respondent would serve till the age of 60 years.
As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer