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‑322 of 1985, decided on 8th April, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against retirement‑‑Petitioner yet in service in view of extension in service‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, would be maintainable.
1985 P L C 1053 distinguished.
‑‑‑ Retirement‑‑Superannuation age of employees of Punjab Road Transport Board of ail categories whether workers or non‑workers, held, would be, sixty years.
Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 8th March, 1986.
In the present appeal the decision, dated 31‑3‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and setting aside the order of retirement the appellant was directed to allow the respondent to continue to serve till attaining the age of 60 years. A direction was also issued that the age of the respondent be regarded as 55 years on the date on which retirement order was issued against him. The order of retirement is dated 28‑2‑1985. The prayer of the respondent, however, was rejected that his age was less than 55 years on 28‑2‑1985.
2. The respondent was allowed one year's extension on 28‑2‑1984 up to 28‑2‑1985. The grievance petition was presented on 11‑2‑1985, meaning thereby that on the date of presentation of the grievance petition, the respondent was still in service. The case of the respondent, therefore, is not hit by 1985 P L C 1053, wherein it has been held A that a person no longer in service ceases to remain a workman. The learned lower Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to decide the case.
3. So far as the age of superannuation is concerned, the age of retirement is 60 years according to Rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to stress the point with some more force but I do not think that he has succeeded to show that the age of superannuation is 55 years and that the workers cannot take benefit of Rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules as amended in 1977. This is true that first of all the age of superannuation was reduced to 55 years in Rule 33.1 in dune, 1967 and, thereafter, in November, 1967 Regulation 19 was added to Workers Regulations, 1965, wherein the age of retirement was prescribed as 55 years authorising the competent authority to grant extension upto the age of 60 years. Before the insertion of Regulation 19 in 1965 Regulations Rules of 1959 were applicable, inasmuch as, no special provision as required by Rule 3 of 1959 Rules governing the workers was present. This is not worthy that in Standing Orders Ordinance, 19600 there was no provision of retirement at all. Now the question arises whether after the insertion of Regulation 19 in 1965 Regulations, the Rules of 1959 continued to apply or not. Rules of 1959 could apply in the absence of a special provision governing the service conditions of the workers as is apparent from Rule 3 of the said Rules, therefore, as soon as the special Regulations of 1965 came in, Rules of 1959 ceased to remain applicable. However, so far as the question of retirement is concerned, since initially there was no provision in the Regulations of 1965 about it, the Rule 33.1 continued to be applicable to the workers upto the date regulation 19 was added Conditions of service cannot be changed to the detriment of the employees but in the present case no such question arises, in as much as at the time regulation 19 was inserted, Rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules provided that the age of retirement was 55 years giving power to the competent authority to grant extension in suitable cases, thereafter. So by the insertion of regulation 19 no prejudice was caused to the workers. But the real difficulty arose when amendment was made in Rule 33.1 in 1977. The age of superannuation was fixed as 60 years by the said amendment for all the employees. The word 'all' appears to have been purposely used. Before that in no amendment of Rule 33.1 this word was used. Even when initially the provision of retirement was made the word 'all' was not used. This is significant to note that before the matter was placed before the Board in 49th meeting held in November, 1976, a note was put up apprising the Board of the fact that for the Workers Regulation 19 of 1965 Regulations was present fixing the age of superannuation as 55 years. So, when the Board held 49th meeting, it was aware of the fact that the age of superannuation for the workers was 55 years and this appears to be the reason that the word 'all' was used while amending Rule 33.1. The intention of the Legislature is clear that Rule 33.1 should be applicable to all the Board employees irrespective of the fact whether they were workers or non‑workers. There could have been some scope to say that the intention of the Legislature was different if no note had been put up in the 49th meeting.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to argue that the word 'employee' is defined in the Rules of 1959 and in the Regulations of 1965 a list of workers is given, therefore, the intention was not that Rule 33.1 was applied to the workers also. The words in which the definition of employee is couched clearly include every kind of employee and even the workers. This cannot be said that the workers are not working under the Board and are not getting salary from the funds of the Board. The intention of the Board by amending Rule 33.1 in 49th meeting was that there should be a uniformity in the age of superannuation for all the employees irrespective of the fact whether they were workers or non‑workers. The following words appearing in the note are very significant:‑
"it may further be stated that at present the age of retirement of workers is 55 years which is extendable to 60 years by the competent authority subject to medical fitness. This is purely discretionary to allow extension all at once or by instalments. It is for consideration whether the Government policy will be applicable to the workers as well."
The last line is very significant, which reads as under:‑
"It is for consideration whether the Government policy will be applicable to the workers as well."
The Board after considering this portion of the note decided that the benefit should be given to the workers as well and for this reason, as mentioned above, the word 'all' was used in the 49th meeting. No word of the Legislature is to be taken as superfluous or meaningless. This is not worthy that the original minutes of 87th meeting held on 4‑6‑1980 were not produced. It, therefore, cannot be said that whatever is written in the order dated 30‑6‑1980 was actually passed by the Board. Even if for the sake of arguments it be said that the order referred to above is the faithful reproduction of what was decided in 87th meeting, it does not amount to an amendment of Rule 33.1, but may be called an interpretation of the said Rule. An explanation can be added to a Rule at the time it is framed, but it is the jurisdiction of the law Courts to interpret the law. If in reality the intention of the Board while holding 87th meeting was that Rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules would not apply to the workers and that they should be governed by Regulation 19 of 1965 Regulations, necessary amendments should have been made in Rule 33.1 of 1965 Rules either deleting the word 'all' or expressly stating that the said Rule would not apply to the workers. So in spite of what was said in 87th meeting held on 4‑6‑1980, Rule 33.1 continued to be applicable to the workers and the learned lower Court rightly held that the age of retirement for the respondent was 60 years.
5. However, this finding of the learned lower Court is incorrect that on the date of order of retirement the respondent was of the age of 55 years. Exh. P.1 is the order of retirement and it is dated 30‑12‑1984. In EXh.P.1 it is mentioned that the age of the respondent would be 58 years on 28‑2‑1985. There is no evidence on the record that on 28‑2‑1985 the age of the respondent was 55 years, so much so that even the respondent did not say so in his statement made before the learned lower Court. Rather he said that he was retired at the age of 58 years. No copy of the birth entry, school leaving certificate or medical certificate was produced to show that the age of the respondent was 55 years. It appears that by mistake the learned lower Court issued direction that the age of the respondent be taken as 55 years on 28‑2‑1985. 1 have not been able to find an iota of evidence on the record, neither the learned counsel for the respondent has been able to point out any whereby it may have been proved that the age of the respondent was 55 years on 28‑2‑1985.
6. As a result, I partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower Court directing that the respondent would complete the age of 60 years on 28‑2‑1987.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer