1986 PLP 644 (PLC)

6. Mr. Imam Bux has challenged his retirement from the service of K.T.C. on the ground, that, he was prematurely retired from service, as there is no provision in the labour law, to retire him from the job, which he holds.

7. Respondent has contended that, he has been retired at the age, more than 55 years, as per departmental rules, and, therefore, he has no secured or guaranteed right, for re‑instatement.

8. I have gone through the copy of the order, which is produced, showing the rules, governing the retirement of the workers of road transport.

9. This order, in brief, is as under: ‑‑ "Regulation No. 19 ‑ Retirement: All the workers are to retire, at the age of 55 years, in the ordinary course. The appointing authority shall have discretion, to extend period of service, upto the age of 60 years, subject to annual medical fitness certificate, by the Road Transport Corporation's medical officer, to be obtained in time, before the extension becomes due. Road Transport Corporation shall have powers, of extension, beyond the age of 60 years."

10. From this rule of Corporation, the retiring age is shown, as 55 years, if further extension is desired, the appointing authority retains discretion, either to grant or to refuse. But, if the extension is granted, it is subject to medical fitness. So, by rule 19 of the Road Transport Corporation, 1965, this is the retirement age.

11. Applicant also admits, that, at the time, he entered in the service of Corporation, he had accepted the appointment order, which provided, in clause (4), that, he will be governed by the general rules, from time to time framed, and approved by the West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation, to the extent, those rules are applicable.

12. If these rules have remained in force, and, there has been no change, by way of amendment, the retiring age of 55 was the determining factor, unless the appointing authority desired to grant extension, by exercising his jurisdiction.

13. Mr. Imam Bux has to show, that, his age was below 55 years, to save him from disqualification. He has not produced the birth certifi cate, but, only document he has produced, is the discharge certificate of the Army, which shows, that, on 24‑1‑1947, he joined the Army, and was discharged from Army, on 20‑12‑1968, after serving 21 years, 10 months and 26 days. He joined the Corporation on 30‑1‑1969, and is retired from service on 10‑7‑1984, when he was nearly 56 years of age.

14. If, according to the respondent, he joined Army, at the age of 18, he completed 39 years, 10 months and 26 days' service, and, therefore, his total service, upto the retiring age, comes beyond 55 years.

15. Applicant Imam Bux has taken only this defence, that, his birth date is not correct, and, therefore, he has applied for change of date of birth. He has also further stated, that, there is no age of retirement in the labour law the version of Mr. Imam Bux is not based on legal grounds. The burden of proof, to prove the birth date, is not on the Corporation, but, on the applicant Imam Bux, who claims, that, he has not completed 55 years. Throughout his service of Corporation, 3f he had any doubt about the age, he could have applied for the correction of his age but, it is only at the time of retirement, he has disputed his birth date. The burden of proof, that, he was below 55 years, was on Mr. Imam Bux, to have produced the original certificate, or the certificate, which he has produced at the time of his initial appointment, in the Army, which he has also failed to produce. If it is contended by Mr. Imam Bux, that, there is no such provision in the labour law. The age of retirement is to be governed by the rules and the terms and conditions, between the employer and the servant, to secure the, guarantees, under the I.R.O. Similarly, there is settlement, between the union and the employer, by which, these rights becomes enforceable. The I.R.O. is not to specify, that, such will be the date of retirement, it is only the rules, which are framed, and the violation of which, if it is redressable, the I.R.O. has provided remedy, for the redress, under section 25‑A, whether the rights are secured or guaranteed, on the basis of settlement, or under law, or an award. The applicant Mr. Imam Bux, therefore, having reached the age of 55 years, has no right secured or guaranteed, and he has no case, for extension, which the appointing authority, or the Chairman, in his revisional jurisdiction, has declined to grant extension, under the rules, which are in force.

16. Application is dismissed. A.E. Application dismissed.