' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 16th March, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant is a retired employee of Railway and joined service with the respondents when his age was between 55 and 56 years. He was retired before reaching the age of 65 years, therefore, he challenged the order of his retirement by means of grievance petition made under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His case is that for supervisory staff to which he belonged the age of superannuation was 65 years and for the workers 55 years. He relies upon his appointment letter and letter of confirmation Exh. P.
3. In the appointment letter and confirmation letter he is designated as supervisor. For supervisors, the probationary period is four months and since in the confirmation letter he was confirmed with effect from 23rd August, 1974 the period of his probation from 25th April, 1974 which is the date of his initial appointment, becomes four months For showing that age of superannuation is 65 years for supervisory staff, the appellant relied upon document marked 'A'. In the order of his retirement his designation is not mentioned as supervisor but was wrongly shown as Assistant Clearing and Forwarding. It was done because he was being retired before completing the age of 65 years. This was not done with good intention. Since in the appointment letter and the order of confirmation, his desigation was given as incharge, supervisory staff, he could not be mentioned as Assistant Clearing and Forwarding in Exh. P.
7.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the appellant is not a workman as according to him, he was Incharge o supervisory staff, he could not come to the Labour Court. He also says that the appellant was entitled to serve after the age of 65 years. In not find any force in this argument. Solar as the point of workman is concerned, even if a person is designated as supervisor, he still does not stand excluded from the definition of workman, if according to the duties assigned to him, he falls within the definition. The appellant does not invoke the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance. For coming to the Labour Court he should come within the ambit of the definition of workman given in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He belongs to the supervisory staff but as hi pay did not exceed Rs, 300, the mere fact that he was performing supervisory duties according to his designation would not bring him within the exception (a) given in section 2 (xxxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His pay given in Exh. P. 1 was Rs, 300 p.m. And the highest grade is Rs, 475, therefore, he is covered by the definition of workman given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The fact that he falls within the definition of workman given in the labour laws would not affect his employment as incharge, clearing and forwarding for which the age of superannuation is 65 years.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has after concluding arguments, produced copy of the Regulations of the respondent society and has argued that where any law or mutual agreement provides alternative conditions for the employee, the said law or the mutual agreement will be substituted for the Regulations of the respondent. In support of his arguments he has drawn my attention to paragraph No, 1 of the Regulations. He has also made reference to the proviso to paragraph No, 6 of Regulation No, 2 which reads as under :- "Except where special conditions apply by individual and mutual agreement in writing and or where special, circumstances or special skills necessitate."
' From the above arguments and making reference to the above-mentioned Regulations the learned counsel concludes that the age of superannuation as 65 years is not applicable to the appellant. I cannot agree with him. There is no individual or mutual agreement between the parties on the record which may be contrary to clause (b) of paragraph of 2 of Regulations. So far as law is concerned, there is no age of superannuation given in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, so no question of the substitution of any law or individual or mutual agreement of the parties for paragraph 5 of the Regulation No, 2 arises and I do not find any force in the additional arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. Since according to the letter of appointment and letter of confirmation the appellant belongs to supervisory staff the age of superannuation given in clause (b) of paragraph No, 2 of Regulations applies to him which is 65 years. The above- mentioned Paragraph No, 5 of the Regulations of the respondent has guaranteed a right to the appellant to continue in service with the respondent till he reaches the age of 65 years.
5. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court accept the grievance petition and direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service with back benefits. If in the meantime the appellant has completed the age of superannuation, he shall not be put to duty and will be entitled only to back benefits till the date he completed the age of superannuation.