1999 PLP 149 (PLC)

Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th August, 1998. DECISION Appellant Muhammad Ilyas was a permanent worker in the respondent Organisation. On attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years he was retired from service on 12‑7‑1997. He moved an application for extension in service but the same was rejected. Accordingly he preferred grievance petition in the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 14‑1‑1998. Hence the present appeal was filed.

2. It is the case of the respondent that it has been a longstanding policy that the workers in the respondent Organisation are retired on attaining the age of 58 years. In exceptional cases the respondent has allowed compliance of service up to the age of 60 years and not beyond. The discretion lies with the General Manager. It is alleged that the policy had been framed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance.

3. I have heard Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the appellant as also Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan for the respondent.

4. The main contention of Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi is that since no retirement age was mentioned in the appointment order, as also no such rules exist in respect of retirement, hence the age of superannuation is to be fixed in accordance with the age prevailing in the Government Organisation i.e. 60 years. However, he admitted that the evidence on record indicates that it had been the policy of the respondent Organisation that the workers are retired on been the policy of the respondent Organisation that the workers are retired on attaining the age of 58 years. Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi placed reliance on 1989 PLC 525, 1996 PLC 543, 1993 PLC 866, 1997 PLC 711 and 1997 PLC

129. The perusal of the aforesaid authorities indicates that though the management could not be restrained from fixing the age of retirement, still it is advisable that at the time of appointment the age of retirement may be intimated to the concerned worker. In assisting the cases of retirement the Courts should be careful to see that the concerned worker has not been victimised. The aforesaid authorities do not lay down that the management has no authority to frame rules or to frame policy in respect of the age of retirement, and that in each and every case the age of retirement should invariably be mentioned in the appointment order. Obviously in the present case no victimisation has been alleged. The only contention of the appellant is that he should have been intimated about the age of retirement in the appointment order and that he should have retired at the age of 60 years. He has no any reason as to why at the time of appointment and even thereafter he did not ask the management to categorically mention the age of retirement.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the other side placed reliance on 1974 PLC Note 57 at page 31, 1981 PLC 766, 1986 PLC 848, 1976 PLC 844, 1980. PLC 716, 1980 PLC 180, 1979 PLC 122, 1992 PLC 761, 1992 PLC 58, 1985 PLC 494, 1985 PLC 1053 and 1998 PLC

573. The gist of the abovementioned authority is to the same effect that the retirement can be ordered in accordance with the longstanding policy of an organisation. However, the Courts should be careful that no victimisation takes place in a particular case.

6. As regards the present case admittedly the worker has himself admitted that there had been a policy of retiring the employees at the age of 58 years. His only claim is that since the appointment order did not mention the age of retirement to be 58 years, hence, he has a right to get the retirement at the age of 60 years or till he is physically fit. As already observed he had been working since a long time with the respondent organisation and he never claimed or made any protest that his age of retirement was not mentioned in the appointment order and that it should be clarified or it should be fixed at the age of attaining 60 years of age. No victimisation has been alleged, nor the evidence indicates that any injustice has been done to the appellant. Hence I do not find any substance in the present appeal and the same stands dismissed. H.B.T./244/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.