1988 PLP 606 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.2(xxviii), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Person no longer in service and not covered by definition of "workman" held, could not invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court. 1985 P L C 1053 rel Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th April, 1986 This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 29‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby holding that the age of superannuation was 60 years, the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service.

2. The respondent was retired on reaching the age of 55 years. I have already held in so many cases that rule 33.1 of 1959 rules as amended in February 1977 applies to the workers as well. When 49th meeting was held in November 1976 a note was put up before the Board apprising it of the fact that according to Regulation No.19 of 1965 Regulations, the age of superannuation for workers was 55 years but in spite of it the Board while adopting the Government notification said that the age of superannuation for all the Board's employees would be 60 years. In no previous amendment of rule 33.1 the word 'all' was used. Since the Board was apprised of the fact that the age of superannuation for the workers was 55 years and as the intention of the Board was that for workers and non‑workers the age of superannuation should be uniform, therefore, the word 'all' was purposely used with the intention that the workers too would be retired on attaining the age of 60 years. No doubt in the meeting held on 30‑6‑1980 the Board noted down article 19 but it did not amend rule 33.1 either by deleting the word 'all' or by expressly saying that the age of superannuation for the workers would be 55 years. If in reality the intention of the Board in the meeting held on 30‑6‑1980 was that for the workers the age of superannuation would be 55 years, necessary amendment should have been made and without doing so the purpose could not be achieved. I, therefore, hold that the age of superannuation for the workers is 60 years.

3. However, on account of the recent ruling of Lahore High Court reported in 1985 P L C 1053, persons who are no longer in service are not covered by the definition of workmen. The respondent was not in service at the time he brought the grievance petition. The learned representative of the respondent has argued that since at the time the respondent served the grievance notice under section 25‑A he was in service, it is immaterial that at the time he brought the grievance petition he was out of service. So far as the present case is concerned, this is wrong that at the time the grievance notice was served, the respondent was in service. The respondent was retired on 1‑11‑1984. The postal receipt carries the same date. The notice sent on 1‑11‑1984 could not have been possibly received by the appellant on the same day. So even on the date on which the grievance notice was received by the appellant, the respondent was not in service. So only on the point of jurisdiction t e appeal of the appellant succeeds

4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal on the point of jurisdiction only and dismiss the grievance petition. However, if the Supreme Court before whom the question whether persons no longer in service, ceased to remain workmen or not is subjudice, holds that Labour Courts have jurisdiction in such cases, the respondent would be entitled to remain in service upto the time he completes the age of 60 years. A.E./100/Lb.P Appeal accepted.