2004 PLP 175 (PLC)

This common order will dispose of two cross-appeals; namely Appeal No.HYD-163 of 1999 filed by appellant Muhammad Ali who was employed in. Bawany Sugar Mills, against the order dated 24-8-1999 passed by Sindh-Labour Court No.VI Hyderabad, holding his retirement already made not lawful, with direction that applicant be retired on attaining the age of superannuation (60 years) in 1998 after payment of his legal dues.

2. The other Appeal No. HYD-164 of 1999 filed by Bawany Sugar Mills Badin against Muhammad Ali who was employed in the said Mill. The appeal was filed against the order dated 24-8-1-999 passed by Sindh Labour Court No. VI Hyderabad. This appeal was heard together with the aforementioned appeal of Muhammad Ali and both appeals were disposed by common order stated above.

3. None from Bawany Sugar Mills including their Representative or Advocate attended the. Court on the last dates of hearing i.e. 13-3-2002 as well as today the 27th May, 2002. They also made no application for adjournment of their case nor any intimation is available before this Tribunal as to the reason of their absence. In these circumstances it may be presumed that they perhaps do not have any interest in pursuing their appeal. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to discuss their prayer and the relief sought by them.

4. On the other hand worker Muhammad Ali has been attending the Court in his appeal through his representative. Even today the said representative Muhammad Iqbal is present. I have heard his arguments and have also gong through his memo of appeal wherein his prayer is:-- "to set aside, to modify the order by expunging the following portion of the impugned Order:-- It is presumed that the applicant has completed his 60 years in the year 1998 The respondent is therefore directed to terminate the services of the applicant after paying the legal dues within a month as the retirement means termination of service under the law".

4. However the learned Labour Court has allowed his grievance petition by judgment the operative part of which is reproduced as under:-- "In such circumstances I answer the above points in negative while holding that the applicant was retired before attaining the age of superannuation. The impugned order passed by the respondent retiring the applicant is not sustainable, the same is hereby set aside. It is presumed that the applicant has completed his 60 years in the year 1998. The respondent is therefore directed to terminate the services of the applicant after paying the legal dues to the applicant without a period of one month as the retirement amounts to termination of service under the law. The grievance application accordingly stands allowed"

5. It is clear from the Labour Court's order that the appellant Muhammad Ali was due to retire in the year 1998 but he was actually retired in 1996 as per letter of respondent dated 25th March, 1996 (Annexure-A/1 to the R&P). This finds support from the National Identity Card of Muhammad Ali at Annexure-R/11 to the cross examination of appellant Muhammad Ali which discloses his year of birth to be 1938. No doubt he had crossed the age of superannuation at the time when the Labour Court had delivered its judgment but to rectify the technical defect in the matter of retirement it, was held by the Labour Court that the retirement already made was not sustainable further A holding that he should be retired in 1998 on attaining the age of superannuation of after payment of full dues to him. As stated earlier since Muhammad Ali had attained the age of 60 years at the time of disposal, of his grievance petition, the effect of the judgment of disposal would be that he stood retired on attaining the age of 60 years which he had already passed. As such there is no question of his reinstatement in service. The only relief that remains to be decided is the quantum of dues which accrued to him on retirement. It is for the management to work out such dues and make the payment.

6. The pith and substance of the above discussion is that Muhammad Ali stood retired on attaining the age of 60 years in 1998 and the management was required to calculate the dues to be paid to Muhammad Ali in the wake of his retirement. Subject to above direction that the management after calculating the legal dues payable to the appellant in consequence of his retirement would make such payment within one month of this judgment, and in case of failure of the management in this regard, the appellant Muhammad Ali would be free to enforce the payment through legal process admissible to him. Both the appeals are dismissed. H.B.T./82/K.L.T. Appeals dismissed.