' The instant appeal is directed against the impugned Award, dated 17-4-1984, given by the Sind Labour Court No. II at Karachi.
2. The facts pertaining to this appeal are that a petition under section 32(1-A) of the 1.R.O., 1969, was preferred by the appellants praying therein that the age of retirement in the factory and the office's workers of the respondents organization be fixed at 65 years besides their consequential reliefs.
The appellants' case at the outset is that no age of retirement was fixed in the said organization, namely, the respondents. According to the practice, the workers have been continued in practice irrespective of their age until their physique and health permitted them to do the work involved in the factory. It was submitted that no demand relating to the age has been settled by and agreement or settlement between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the respondents. They have submitted that no authentic and genuine proof of date of birth was obtained and the age was mentioned arbitrarily. A Charter of Demands was submitted by the appellants and on failure of the respondents to accept the demands, the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were taken and since- no agreement was arrived at between the parties, the appellants filed the petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. The respondent's case is that for more than 30 years the age of retirement in the establishment for all categories of the employees has been fixed at 55 years and the appellants calim that no age of retirement has been fixed was totally false. The respondents have further denied that the date of the birth are arbitrarily mentioned in the records of the workers. They further submitted that the appellants have no locus standi to raise the dispute as the extension in the age of retirement is not an industrial dispute. They have questioned the maintainability of the petition under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Abdul Majeed for the appellants and Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate, for the respondents. The learned counsel Mr. Abdul Majeed argued the matter at length and submitted that the appellants, on 25-1-1984, gave a notice of demands under section 26(1) of the I.R.O., 1969, demanding the fixation of the age of retirement for workmen. This was replied by the Management that the issue of the age of retirement is a settled matter between the parties and, therefore, no industrial dispute can arise in that respect. The demand raised by the appellants is in gross violation of the settlement, dated 14-9-1983, which will remain in operation till 13-3-1985. This did not satisfy the learned counsel and the appellants and, therefore, the petition before the Labour Court was filed. The arguments of learned counsel, Mr. Abdul Majeed are that the Labour Court did not adduce the evidence as such and decided the matter on relying on photostat copies of the documents which the respondents produced and the learned lower Court passed order on this.
This is the main point of Mr. Abdul Majeed.
5. Whereas, Mr. M.A. Khan has carried me through the documents and read out the relevant paragraphs of the agreement, dated 16-5-1975, at page 67, Exh. R-5. Subsection (27) captioned "Interim Retirement Benefits" carried the following words-- "At the time of normal retirement at the age of 55 and subject to completion of 18 years of service, a worker will be entitled to an Interim Benefit, equivalent to 2 months Basic Salary. This will be in addition to the Gratuity entitlement under the existing rules of Retirement Gratuity."
' This document pertains to the year 1975, wherein the age of retirement is mentioned 55 years.
Then, again the relevant document is at page 241, Exh. R/28, where a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 31-10-1983, which was the agreement in full and final settlement of all demands raised during negotiations conciliation to the Charter of Demands, dated 1-7-1983, and this agreement will be effective for the period ending 30-6-1985. It was stipulated that the parties will uphold the sanctity of this agreement. Clause 12 of the said agreement is as under:- "Retirement Gratuity.- It is agreed that permanent workers/ workman staff covered by this settlement who are retired, will be paid one month salary (as per gratuity rules) for each year of service upto a maximum of twenty-five times the monthly salary/wages or Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) whichever is less. All other terms and conditions of existing Gratuity Scheme will remain unchanged."
3. Under the above paragraph all other terms and conditions of existing Gratuity Scheme will remain unchanged. The existing scheme is a printed booklet at page 61, R/1, which mentions the "date of retirement". It is as under:- "(xi) 'Retirement Date' means the 1st April immediately following the date on which the Employees/Member reaches the age of 55 years, provided that in case the first day of April is the birthday of any Member then Retirement Date in the case of such member shall be his 55th birthday."
7. Various other documents are produced by the respondents in Various other documents are produced by the respondents in this case and they are enumerated in the impugned order at page 3.
8. The documents mentioned above establish the facts that the age of retirement was 55 years at the time when the agreement, dated 31-10-1983, was entered into and this settlement or agreement was binding on the parties upto 30-6-1985. It is, therefore, established that the appellants have no case so long the settlement arrived at by them continues to be in operation upto June, 1985. Those who were to be retired earlier and for which this petition was filed before the learned Labour Court shall be bound with this agreement.
9. The facts in the instant case disclose that there is no industrial dispute as defined in sub-clause
(xiii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under:- "(xiii) 'Industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers or between employers and workmen or between workman and workmen, which is concerned with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person, and is not in respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured for him by or under any law, other than this Ordinance, or any award or settlement for the time being in force."
' The last line of this subsection bars the present application.
10. There is no force in the appeal. I, therefore, dismiss it.