1981 PLP 766 (PLC(CS))

A. Hafiz for Respondents. Date of hearing : 31st August, 1980. The appellant, who was employed as a Head Peon with the American Express International Banking Corporation, the respondent herein, was retired from service with effect from 10th September, 1978, on completing thirty years service with the respondents. The appellant challenged the retirement orders by way of a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. filed before the learned Labour Court. The respondents resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the appellant had been retired in accordance with the superannuation policy prevailing in the Company which was based on the settlement arrived at between the respondents and the C. B. A. on 10th July, 1973, according to which employees are to retire from the services of the respondent Bank on reaching the age of fifty‑eight years or on completion of thirty years service, whichever is earlier. The learned Labour Court has held that the respondents were entitled to retire the appellant, as has been done by them, and no legal right of the appellant has been infringed. It accordingly dismissed the appellant's grievance petition. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the said decision.

2. The sole point which falls to be considered in the instant case is whether the retirement of the appellant infringes any right guaranteed or secured to the appellant under any law, settlement or award. As already pointed out, the case of the respondents is that their policy of retirement is based upon clause 9 of the settlement, dated 10th July, 1973, arrived at between the respondents and the C. B. A. in the Company. The said clause reads as follows :‑ "Retirement‑Employees will retire from the service of the Bank on reaching the age of 58 or on completion of 30 years service which ever is earlier."

3. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant, sought to assail the settlement on the twin grounds, firstly, that no such settlement had been arrived at or at any rate the execution of such settle ment had not been established and that, secondly, even if such settlement was executed it was not binding on the appellant. Now, as regards the first objection of Mr. Lodhi to the settlement of 1973, it may be pointed out that at no time the appellant had denied the existence of the execution of such settlement. In fact he had conceded not only the making of such settlement but also the policy of retirement detailed therein. In response to the respondent's letter, dated 10th June, 1978, informing the appellant that he was due to retire on 10th September, 1978, on completing thirty years service with the company, the appellant, by his letter, dated 21st June, 1978, requested the respondents to extend his service by 2 years. More important, in his letter, which appears to have been received by the respondents on 13th July, 1978, the appellant has stated that in the recent Memorandum of Settlement the question of retirement on completion of thirty years service was totally dropped by the Management and the federation, thereby conceding the position that the policy of retirement on completion of thirty years service was in force in the respondent‑Company. The appellant's letter, dated 25th July, 197&, is still more explicit and states that tee clause of the settlement between the American Express Employee Union and your Management, dated 10th July, 1973, was totally dropped (relating to retirement), in the subsequent settlement. It is, thus, clear that at no time the appellant denied the existence of settlement of July, 1973 and in fact all along conceded this position. A copy of the said settlement was produced by the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, from the official records. He was the proper person to produce this copy as it was endorsed to him and the other authorities to whom copies of settlements are required to be sent. It may also be mentioned that the settlement was witnessed by Mr. Bashiruddin, Deputy Director, Labour Welfare, who has appended his signature and the stamp of his office at the foot of the settlement as a witness to the settlement.

4. The appellant, having been retired in accordance with the settle ment of 1973, can have no valid grievance. It is immaterial whether the appellant was a member of the union which was the C. B. A. at the rele vant time and executed the settlement, for the C. B. A., as provided by subsection (12) of section 22, I. R. O., is entitled to undertake collective' bargaining on behalf of the employees on matters connected with their employment, non‑employment and the terms of employment or the condition of work and to represent all or any workmen in any proceedings.

5. It was also sought to be contended by Mr. Lodhi that the appel lant had a right to continue in the employment until he was physically fit to perform his duties. A similar contention was examined and repelled in the cases of Eastern Express Co. v. Sind Labour Court (1977 P L C 226) and Muslim Constructors Ltd. v. Shakir Ali, decided by this Tribunal on 10th October, 1979. It may be re‑affirmed that it is a right of the employer to retire its employees on attaining retirement age which is in force in the establish went either by way of rules, practice or according to the settlement.

6. For the foregoing reasons I see no force in this appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.