This is an application under section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969, filed by Sardar Shah, Ex-Head Watchman, Hyesons Sugar Mills, Khanpur for re-instatement in service on the ground of premature retirement ordered by the respondent Management dated 18-1-1978. According to the case of the petitioner, his date of birth is 5-8-1922 as given in his original particulars of service submitted to the Management at the time of recruitment which according to him was manipulated to be read as 5- 8-1914 and made the basis of his retirement. According to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent management, the petitioner has been rightly retired on attaining the age of superannuation and for that matter he has no cause of action to come to Labour Court.
2. The petitioner examined himself in support of his case while the documents on record were relied on for the case of the respondent without giving any further evidence, except for the particulars of service submitted by the petitioner at the time of his recruitment, Exh. R. I, besides relying on the medical evidence given by the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan. The basic question to be determined in this case is whether retirement of a workman on the basis of superannuation can be made a subject of adjudication in the labour Court. I am of the view that retirement on the basis of superannuation has not been statutorily secured in regard to any definite age. The industrial managements has been left to their discretion to fix any age to be the superannuation age and if the retirement has been made according to that age then it is not challengeable under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 or under any provision of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordin--ance, 1968. Because neither of the two enactments contain any provision fixing the age of retirement of an industrial worker and securing the right of superannuation in some comprehensive sense of the term. Under section 25- A of the I. R. O. a worker may bring his grievance to the labour Court in respect of a right guaranteed or secured by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force and not in regard to any other right whatsoever by way of equitable justice or by analogy of the general rule of retirement observed in the field of public service. Accordingly I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the case of retirement of the petitioner directed by the respondent Management on the basis or superannuation.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present cast is not merely a case of retirement but the bona fides of the Management in this connection have also been challenged by the petitioner and it is contended that the superannuation age fixed by the Management itself has not been followed and the retirement has been ordered on mala fide basis. In regard to such contention what is to be carefully noted is whether the retirement in question can be characterized a mere cloak upon the termination manoeuvred otherwise than in accordance with the proper prescribed time of retirement. Because ordinarily any case of retirement of a worker can be challenged as to its bona fides and urged to bring within the pruview of section 25-A of the I. R. O.
Which in fact does not protect the matter of retirement unless it is secured by any law or any award or settlement. Now what is left to be gone into in such case is to see that the worker has not been victimized under the guise of retirement as in that case it would not be a retirement on the basis of superannuation but termination or dismissal on illegal basis. Barring such situation any other case of retirement provided it is directed on the ground of superannuation to stand near about the age fixed by the Management does not fall within the purview of adjudication by the Labour Court.
5. It is an admitted fact in the present case that the petitioner was above 55 years of age when he was ordered to be retired as having crossed the age of 58 years fixed by the Management as the superannuation age. So in this case the attaining of 58 years of age may be taken the rule of superannuation. Now what is to be seen is whether circumstances have come on record to show that the petitioner was evidently not of the age of 58 years and his retirement was only made a cloak for his illegal termina--tion. In case, any such circumstances were established only then the Labour Court should go into the question of mala fides as mere retirement would not be taken as termination or removal from service challengeable in the Labour Court. The petitioner has failed to establish any such circumstance so as to conclude that under the guise of retirement he was illegal, terminated.
6. The basic factor urged on behalf of the petitioner for the mala fides on the part of the Management is that the original particulars of service submitted by the petitioner, photocopy Exh.
P. 3, were manipulated in regard to the date of birth given therein by making the year 1922 to read as 1914, as the date of birth. The respondent Management submitted in evidence the original particulars brought on its record by the petitioner, Exh. R.I, duty signed by him. According to this document the date of birth given therein is 5-8-1914 without any manipulation. The petitioner in order to prove Exh. P. 3 as being the correct photocopy of the original particulars with the alleged manipulation has relied on letter of the Management dated 13-12-1977, Exh P. 3, by which the petitioner has been given the notice of retirement. It is also mentioned therein that a photostat of particulars dated 2-1-1973 has been enclosed thereto. It has been argued that the photocopy Exh.
P. 3/A is dated 2-1-1973 while the particulars of service placed on record by the Management, Exh.
R.I, is dated 12-1-1973 and for that matter the latter is to be taken as an ingenuine document. A variety of questions arise as to the genuineness of the photocopy Exh. P. 3/A, the despatch of which has been totally denied by the Management to the address of the petitioner. The first question is why the Management collectively should go against the interest of the petitioner in the matter of superannua--tion and that too to the extent of fabricating his date of birth. The second question is that in case the date of birth was deliberately tampered with by the Management, then why another document was needed to be fabricated as Exh. R. I to take the place of the document, a photocopy of which had been sent to the petitioner. There is also no proof that Exh. P. 3-A was actually the photocopy which was enclosed with letter, Exh. P. 3 which admittedly was sent to the petitioner as notice of retirement. The possibility of the date of the copy of particulars mentioned in Exh: P. 3 as 2-1-1973 having been given out of inadvertence instead of 12-1-1973 can also not be excluded and the photocopy of Exh. P. 3-A might not be the same document as forwarded by the Management as dated 12-1-1973. Such apprehensions are strengthened by the primary fact that the petitioner when referred to the medical test for his age, has been found on the basis of a thorough test given by the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan to be of the age ranging "between 55 to 60 years being more near to 60". The petitioner was retired with effect from 18-1-1978 which clearly mean that he was not less than 58 years of age when he was ordered to be retired. Such being the case no question of mala fides arises on the part of the Management to make the retirement of the petitioner a guise for his illegal termination, the only limited score to be gone into by the Labour Court in the matter of retirement of an industrial worker. In the result the impugned order of respondent being upheld, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The file may be consigned.