2004 PLP 222 (PLC)

Both the above mentioned petitions are being disposed of by this single judgment as the facts of both the cases are same and the law points involved are the same.

2. The facts on the basis of which the petitioners have filed these petitions are that they are the employees of respondents and their date of birth as recorded with the respondents is 1944. They, allege that they are being retired prior to the age of superannuation viz. 60 years in violation of law. They have stated that they have still 2/3 years to serve but due to unfair labour practice on the part of management they are being retired to get rid of them and their union activities.

3. Upon presentation of the petitions the respondents were directed not to retire the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz till the next date of hearing as his date was doubtful whereas no stay was granted to Muhammad Azam Satti.

4. The respondents filed comments as well as counter affidavit in which they have stated that the CBA had executed an agreement by which the retirement age of the workers was fixed at 57 years. According to them since both these petitioners have attained the age of superannuation, hence they were retired in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. They have also stated that by retiring the petitioners on their superannuation age does not constitute any unfair labour practice.

5. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondents and have gone through the petitions, the comments on them, counter affidavit and other relevant documents.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioners argued that under the Constitution and under various civil laws the retirement age of an employee is fixed at 60 years whereas the respondents are retiring the petitioners before the age of 60 years and as such the action of the respondents is illegal and violative of the laws. He further argued that the petitioners are office‑bearers of CBA union, hence they are being targeted and being retired prior to their superannuation age to get rid of them.

7. On the other hand learned advocate for the respondents has argued that under labour laws no retirement age is fixed hence by an agreement with the C.B.A. union, the retirement age was fixed at 57 years. According to him previously the retirement age was 55 years but at the instance of C.B.A. the retirement age was enhanced from 55 to 57 years. He further argued that the letter of retirement was given to the petitioners one month prior to their retirement and as such the respondents have committed no unfair labour practice therefore the petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable in law and the petitioners have absolutely no cause of action.

8. I have considered the arguments of learned advocate for the parties. It is mentioned in paras. 9 and 10 of both the petitions that the age recorded with the respondents is 1944. This is an admitted position that the date of birth of both the petitioners is 1944. In such circumstances the petitioners are bound to retire at the end of years, 2001 by completing 57 years .of service. Admittedly the petitioners have been retired w.e.f 31‑12‑2001. I have gone through the term 10 of the agreement executed by the C.B:A. with the management. According to this term the retirement age of workman was enhanced from 55 to 57 years. This agreement was produced by the petitioners themselves. Therefore, no illegality or violation was committed by the management and consequently no, unfair labour practice was committed by the management in retiring the petitioners on attaining their age of superannuation. The learned advocate for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are hale and hard and can serve for another 3/4 years and they may be retained till they attained the age of 60 years. This argument of learned advocate for the petitioners is absolutely illegal and unwarranted by law. This Court has no jurisdiction to ask the management to continue the petitioners beyond the age of superannuation. When the C.B.A. has executed an agreement, it is binding upon all the workers as well as on the management. The management by retiring the petitioners on their own agreement have neither committed any illegality nor have committed any unfair labour practice. The petitioners in filing the petitions have been ill advised and they have absolutely no cause of action to file these petitions. In view of above reasons I hold that not only the petitioners are not entitled to any injunction/ stay but their petitions are not maintainable according to law as the petitioners have absolutely no cause of action to file these petitions. Accordingly the stay granted in favour of Muhammad Nawaz is withdrawn while both the petitions being not maintainable are dismissed. Announced in open Court. Given under my hand and seal of the Commission, this 21st day of January, 2002. H.B.T./59/N.I.R.C. Petitions dismissed.