1994 PLP 609 (PLC)
SAID AHMED Versus M/s. WESTERN PAKISTAN TANNERIES, HYDERABAD through Director
| Citation | 1994 PLP 609 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SAID AHMED Versus M/s. WESTERN PAKISTAN TANNERIES, HYDERABAD through Director |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 609 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 609 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 609 (PLC) (SAID AHMED Versus M/s. WESTERN PAKISTAN TANNERIES, HYDERABAD through Director). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui for Appellant.
- NA. Talpur for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Retirement‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Employee, according to terms of appointment, was to be retired on superannuation at age of 55 years, but could be retained in service further, subject to conduct and health permitting‑‑‑Employee was retired when he completed age of 60 years and last five years of service were beyond age of superannuation as per service rules of employer company‑‑‑No right of employee having been infringed by such retirement, be could not challenge his retirement, especially when he failed to establish that he had been victimized.
Judgment & Decree
Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui for Appellant. NA. Talpur for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1994. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar by the respondents on 4‑12‑1981. According to the paragraph 7 of the letter of appointment, which is duly thumb‑marked by the petitioner, he was liable to be retired on superannuation at the age of 55, but could be retained in service further, conduct and health permitting. On the record of the respondents his date of birth was recorded as 1932 and that is also to be found in the identity card, which the petitioner himself had produced. He came to be retired on 11‑2‑1992. The petitioner, however, maintained that he had been retired because he had filed a complaint against the respondents which was still pending before the Court. He added that there were persons beyond sixty years of age still working with the respondent company. He, therefore, served a grievance notice and filed the petition, which came to be resisted.
3. That he had completed the age of sixty when he was retired has not been challenged. Actually the last five years of service were beyond the age superannuation as per service rule of the company. Even the contention that he had been victimized has got no substance because two other Chowkidar ; namely Soofi Nazeer and Jan Muhammad had also filed complaints and they are still working though beyond the age of superannuation.
4. No rights of the appellant were infringed. I will therefore uphold the, impugned order and dismiss the same. H.B.T./2304/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.