1996 PLP 184 (PLC)

M.M. Jeelani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th October, 1995. This appeal arises from order of the Second Sindh Labour v Court, Karachi whereby the grievance application of the respondent worker for re instatement was allowed on the ground that in the absence of terms and conditions of service regarding age of superannuation fixed prior to the appointment any subsequent fixation was not binding and the worker to continue to work until he was prevented from working by an act of God. The facts in brief are that applicant Muhammad Yousuf was appointed by the appellant company as a peon on 1‑9‑1950. He was then promoted as petty cashier on 1‑4‑1981. On attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years he was retired. He sent a grievance notice that he cannot be retired as this was not mentioned in his order of appointment. He was given a reply that this age of retirement was according to the settlement between the management and the Collective Bargaining Agent dated 29‑5‑1984 and this was binding on the workers as well as the management. The learned Labour Court agreed with the view that age of superannuation fixed subsequent to the appointment would not have retrospective effect and relying on various decisions ordered re‑instatement of the worker with full back benefits. The management has accordingly appealed.

3. The learned Advocate for the management has drawn my attention to the settlement memo. filed by him in the Labour Court in this connection. Under clause (xiv) it is clearly mentioned:‑‑ . "It is agreed that the retirement age be raised to 60 years instead of 58 years as at present."

4. This settlement is between the employers Cyanamid Pakistan Limited and the representative of workers for Cyanamid Pakistan Limited Employees' Union.

5. It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellant that under section 39 of the I.R.O. a settlement arrived at between the employer and the Collective Bargaining Agent shall be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute. It has, therefore, been argued that since the age of superannuation as 60 years has been agreed to between the parties the respondent cannot now get away from it on the plea that this settlement did not precede the order of his appointment,

6. The learned counsel for the worker has cited some rulings that age of superannuation fixed unilaterally would not have binding effect and could not be considered retrospectively. But in this case fixation of age apart from being reasonable is between the parties and is binding under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I cannot see how the worker could get out of it, even otherwise it does not appear to be just or reasonable that a worker can be allowed to continue working as of right until only he is disabled on account of age or infirmity.

7. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. The back benefits deposited may be refunded to the management. H.B.T./2522/Lb.S Appeal allowed.