Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑196 of 1985, heard on 10th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Retirement‑‑Extension of service beyond superannuation age‑‑Karachi Transport Corporation Driver's case‑‑Rules laying down superannuation of workers at 55 years of age with discretion to Corporation to extend service upto 60 years age‑‑Driver retired at age of 55 years‑‑Plea that discretion was not used properly‑‑Driving being a delicate job requiring consideration of not only sharpness of mind but also of agility with which body of person moves‑‑In matters of discretion fitness and general health would be considered‑‑Appointing authority having discretion to extend age of retirement upto sixty years in instalments or at once, retirement of employee, therefore, after superannuation of 55 years, held, was not open to any exception‑‑Appeal of employee against dismissal being without merit dismissed especially being based on time‑barred grievance petition.

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

Abdul Monem Khan for Appellant.

Azmatullah Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10th February, 1986

Muhammad Ramzan, Driver of Karachi Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal against an order passed by IVth Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 26‑5‑1985. The facts enunciated in the arguments of the learned representative of the appellant are that Muhammad Ramzan being Driver was in the permanent employment of Karachi Transport Corporation, vide appointment order, dated 1969. He attained the age of 55 years and was retired from service on 11‑7‑1984. This retirement took place in accordance with rule 19 of the Rules of Road Transport Corporation. Grievance notice was served on the respondent‑Corporation on 6‑1‑1985 and. subsequently, the grievance petition was filed before the Labour Court on 17‑2‑1985, to contend the issue that he did not attain the age of 60 years, therefore, his retirement was illegal. He further contended that there is no limit of age for retirement in Labour Laws, therefore, he is entitled to be re‑instated with full back benefits.

2. The pleas of the respondent, Karachi Transport Corporation were two‑fold, firstly, that the age of retirement was 55 years and it was at the discretion of the Corporation to extend the age upto 60 years either in instalment or at once; and secondly, that the grievance petition is time‑barred. It was contended that the appellant, in his cross-examination before the Labour Court that on 11‑7‑1984, when he received the order of retirement, his age was 58 years, and that he had sent the grievance notice on 6‑1‑1985. He further admitted that he had served the Army for 15 years and was discharged in the year 1960. The appellant also admitted the genuineness of the certificate issued to him on 12‑6‑1968, Annexure 'C'. It was also contended that at the time of retirement by the respondent‑Corporation, the appellant had 16 years service to his credit.

3. I have heard the argument 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 undesirable 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 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 Driver is to be considered and his general health is got to be considered. A Driving is a delicate job, where not only the sharpness of mind but the agility with which his body moves is to be considered. The Corporation did not find the fitness of Driver, Muhammad Ramzan, hence, he was 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 atonce 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 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 Labour Court in respect of a right guaranteed or secured by or under any law or any award or a 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 a retirement of the petitioner directed by the respondent management on the basis of superannuation."

7. Lastly, the grievance petition of the appellant is also not maintainable being hopelessly time‑barred.

8. In view of the law and the facts, I find that the appellant Muhammad Ramzan, 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.