The decision, dated 23-1-1984 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with all back benefits, holding that the age of superannuation was 60 years and not 55 years.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel fort the appellant that according to Regulation No. 19 of 1965 Regulations, the age of superannuation is 55 years, so the respondent was rightly retired on reaching the said age. He has made reference to the decision made by the Board in its 89th meeting held in June, 1980. No doubt in the third para of the said decision,- it was said that the Board had noted down and endorsed Regulations of 1965 and explained that they would apply to the workers but since in the said meeting rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules was not amended, the same is effective and since in the said rule the age of superannuation is given as 4iQ, years, the respondent could not be retired on the age of 55 years. This is noteworthy that in 49th meeting held in January, 1977, the decisions of which were notified on 4-2-1977, rule 33.1 was amended and it was said that the age of retirement of all employees of the Board would be 60 years. Since rule 33.1 that was amended in the said meeting was not thereafter amended, the age of superannuation, all employees working under the Board continues to be 60 years until now. Needless to say that where there are two contradictory provisions of law, the one that favours the employee is to be followed.
Since the age of superannuation is 60 years according to rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules as amended on 4- 2-1977, Regulation No.19 of 1965 Regulations has no effect. I have at length discussed the point in 1984 PLC 953. So the learned lower Court rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent.