Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑138 of 1984 heard on 21st October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Retirement on superannuation‑‑Whether can be made a subject of adjudication by Labour Court‑‑Driver of Karachi Transport Corporation under rules to retire on attaining age of 55 years but appointing authority given discretion to extend age up to 60 years in instalments or at once‑‑Retirement made at age of 55 years keeping in view fitness‑‑Order challenged on grounds that discretion was not exercised properly‑‑Labour Court refusing to interfere in discretion and dismissing grievance petition‑‑Appellate Tribunal maintaining order of Labour Court.

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

S. P. Lodhi for Appellant.

Mir Raza Hussain Hydri for Respondent

Date of hearing: 21st October, 1985.

Khuda Bakhsh, Driver of Karachi Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal against an order passed by IIIrd Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 9‑4‑1984. The facts enunciated in the arguments of the learned representative of the appellant are that Khuda Bakhah being Driver was in the employment of Karachi Transport Corporation, vide appointment order, dated 23‑7‑1977. He attained the age of 55 years and was retired from service on 6‑10‑1983. This retirement took place in accordance with rule 9 of the Rules of Road Transport Corporation. Grievance petition was filed to contend the issue that he could work up to 60 years of age and consequently till that age he was fit to perform the duties. He was fit enough to perform the duties up to 60 years of age.

2. The plea of the 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 instalment or at once. It was contended by the Corporation that no legal or vested rights 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. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative of the appellant and Mr. Mir Raza Hussain Hyder, learned representative of the respondent‑Corporation.

4. Mr. S.P. Lodhi contended that the exercise of the discretion was not done properly and Khuda Bakhsh was fit enough to be a Driver for a further period up to 60 years. Further, he contended that the Labour Laws were silent as regards to the age of retirement.) To this contention, it is replied by the District Manager on behalf of the respondent‑corporation 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 up to the age of 60 years if it was desirable. The contract of appointment, Exh.2‑A, in its clause (4) 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. Mr. S.P. Lodhi further contended 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 B is a delicate job, where not only the sharpness of mind but the agility with which his body moves is to be considered. The management did not find the fitness of Driver, Khuda Bakhsh, therefore, he wag retired.

6. The reference is made to 1980 P L D 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 of 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 learned Labour Court and is apt and is reported in 1979 P L C 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 to 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 equitably justice or by analogy of the general rule 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 tasks of superannuation. "

6‑A. In view of the law and the facts, I find that the appellant, C Khuda Bakhsh 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.