1976 PLP 844 (PLC(CS))
RAHIMULLAH Versus MESSRS SHAKARGANJ SUGAR MILLS LTD., JHANG
| Citation | 1976 PLP 844 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | IIIrd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | RAHIMULLAH Versus MESSRS SHAKARGANJ SUGAR MILLS LTD., JHANG |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 844 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 844 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the IIIrd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 844 (PLC(CS)) (RAHIMULLAH Versus MESSRS SHAKARGANJ SUGAR MILLS LTD., JHANG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shoeb Zafar Rizvi for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chatta for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Retirement-Fixation of superannuation age-Discretion of emplo yer-Medical fitness of workman after superannuation age-Does not fetter right of employer to retire a workman-Retirement on superannuation age-Does not create a cause of grievance to approach Labour Court - Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A. 1974LLC231fol.
Judgment & Decree
1974LLC231fol. Shoeb Zafar Rizvi for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chatta for Respondent. In Appeals Nos. 378, 379 and 383 of 1974, same question of law is involved, therefore, they are taken together. [Messrs Rahimullah, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Abrahim were retired Patwaris. They were employed by Shakarganj Sugar Mills, Jhang, as Fieldmen, to look after the sugar cane crop in different areas. After about a year in April (1974, their services were terminated on the ground that the age of retirement was 55 years and they had attained more than that. age. The above said employees filed separate petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re-instatement. The ground taken in their applications was that their ages were more than 55 years at the time of their employment and they could not be removed from services till they were fit to do work as Fieldmen. The Junior Labour Court was of the view that the services of the employees were terminated on the basis of reaching of the age of superannuation and it was retirement and not termination and as such no ban could be imposed on the employer for retiring its employees on account of age. Reliance was placed by the Junior Labour Court on 1974 L L C
231. In all the appeals two grounds were taken to challenge the order of the lower, Court, firstly, that the appellants resumed their duties after their retirement from Government service and the employer knowing this fact gave appointment to them and any rules framed afterward were not applicable to the appellants: and secondly, that the appellants were medically fit for the job for which they were employed. There is nothing on record to show as to when any rule for retirement was framed by the Management. I am of the view that the Management was competent to fix the age of superannuation and it was not material when such a rule was framed. It was within the competency, of the employer to retire any of the employees who had attained the ages, of superannuation. In the present appeals all the appellants have attained, age more than 55 years and so the employer was competent to retire them. The appellants may be medically fit but it is within the discretion of their employer to say that on account of age they should be retired. No cause of any grievance arises in these cases. The lower Court rightly dismissed their petitions. The appeals have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed.