' The 3 appellants, who were previously employed in the Sind Road Transport Corporation as drivers, were taken up in the same employment by the Karachi Transport Corporation, the respondent herein, and on the terms and conditions as applicable to them while in the service of the Sind Road Transport Corporation, with effect from 1st February, 1977, when the Karachi Transport Corporation was established. All the 3 appellants were retired, on attaining the age of 55 years. The action was purported to have been taken under rules 33.1 of the Sind Road Transport Corporation Services Rules, 1970. The appellants challenged the orders of their retirement before the learned 1Vth Labour Court, which has dismissed their grievance petitions on the grounds, firstly, that they have been properly retired in accordance with rules 33.1, secondly. That having been retired from service, they were not entitled to file and maintain grievance petitions under section 25-A, I. R.0., and thirdly, that the age of retirement in the Road Transport Corporation was 55, as held in the case reported in 1980 PLC 180, Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Labour Court, the appellants have preferred separate appeals to this Tribunal. This order will dispose of all the 3 appeals.
2. 1 have heard Mr. Abdul Monem Khan for the appellants and Mr. Sirajul Haque Qureshi, who appeared for the respondent-Corporation. It was contended by Mr. Sirajul Haque that the appellants were taken up in the service of the Karachi Transport Corporation on the specific conditions that they would be governed by the same terms and conditions as during the period of the Sind Road Transport Corporation and that further they would be governed by the rules and regulations, as adopted, framed and amended from time to time by the Karachi Transport Corporation. The contention of Mr. Sirajul Haque is founded on the orders of appointment of the appellants where these conditions have been specifically laid down. The question, however, that falls to be considered is what were the terms and conditions applicable to the appellants while they were in the service of the Sind Road Transport Corporation. It was contended by Mr. Sirajul Haque that by a resolution of the Karachi Transport Corporation, dated 31st January, 1977, the Karachi Transport Corporation had adopted the rules of service framed by the Sind Road Transport Corporation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the minutes of the meeting at which the said resolution was passed. One of the decisions taken at the said meeting was that the delegation of financial and administrative powers of the Sind Road Transport Corporation are adopted till they are reviewed at the appropriate time and that these powers shall be exercised by the officers of the new corporation as were exercised by the officers of the Sind Road Transport Corporation with corresponding duties and responsibilities. Even if it be assumed that the said resolution adopts the service rules of the Sind Road Transport Corporation, the question that arises is as to what were the service rules applicable to bus drivers under the Sind Road Transport Corporation. Mr. Sirajul Haque claimed that the Sind Road Transport Corporation Service Rules, 1970 were applicable to them. The said Rules appear to have adopted the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Service Rules, 1959, with necessary modifications consequent upon the setting up of province of Sind and a separate Road Transport Corporation for the said province. However, both the Rules of 1959 as well as the Rules of 1970, specifically provide that they shall not be applicable to any person to whom the Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance, 1968, and the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1967, are applicable. It is not disputed that the said Ordinances are applicable to the 3 appellants. As such, the Rules of 1970 as well as the Rules of 1959, have no application to the 3 appellants notwithstanding the fact that in their letters of appointment, it was specified that they would he governed by the terms and conditions applicable to them while in the employment of the Sind Road Transport Corporation.
3. It was contended by Mr. Abdul Monem Khan that the age of retirement in the respondent- Corporation is governed by the office memo. Dated 5th April, 1979, issued by the Secretary of the Corporation, which seems to suggest that in accordance with the policy of the Government, an employee in a corporation autonomous body should be retired on attaining the age of 60 years.
The Secretary of the Corporation, Mr. N.A. Baseer was examined before the learned Labour Court and he stated that the said memo. Was issued without it being placed before or approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation and that the said letter was withdrawn in December, 1979. As such, they said letter has no binding force and cannot be made the basis for extending or fixing the age of retirement in the respondent-Corporation.
4. As neither the rules of 1959 or 1970 are applicable to the 3 appellants nor is their age of retirement governed by the memo, dated 5th April, 1979, issued by the Secretary of the respondent-Corporation, it cannot be said, in the absence of evidence on record as to what was the age of retirement, either under the rules or practice, so far as drivers are concerned under the Sind Road Transport Corporation. Since no evidence on this issue was adduced by either party, and as the cases of the appellants cannot be decided in the absence of such material evidence, I would remand the cases to the learned IVth Labour Court for giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on this issue and thereafter to give a fresh decision in the light of the evidence which comes on record.
5. Before concluding, I would like to mention that although rerefence was made in the case of S.R.T.C. v. Hassan Ali Pirzada, to the contention of the learned counsel for the Sind Road Transport Corporation that the age of retirement in the said Corporation was 55 years, it was not examined in the said case as to whether the rules of retirement were applicable to persons whose conditions of1 service were governed either by the Standing Orders or the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1967. 1980 PLC 180