DECISION Abdul Rashid, Conductor of Karachi Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal against an order passed by IVth Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 2-3-1985. The facts enunciated in the arguments of the learned representative of the appellant are that Abdul Rashid being Conductor was in the employment of Karachi Transport Corporation vide appointment order, dated 1-11-1968.
He attained the age of 55 years and was retired from service on 14-7-1984. This retirement took place in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of Road Transport Corporation. Grievance petition was filed to contend the issue that he could work upto 60 years of age and consequently till that age he was fit to perform the duties. He was entitled to remain in service till he was entitled to continue in service as long as he is medically fit to perform the duties assigned to him.
2. The plea of the Karachi Transport Corporation was that the age of retirement was 55 years and it was at the discretion of the Corporation to extend the age of 60 years either in installment or at once. It was contended by the Corporation that no legal or vested right under any law, agreement or award was violated and as such the grievance petition was not maintainable.
3. In the Labour Court, evidence was tendered. I have heard the .I arguments of Mr. Abdul Moneem Khan, the learned representative of the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan on behalf of the respondent Corporation.
4. Mr. Abdul Moneem Khan contended that the exercise of the discretion was not done properly and Abdul Rashid was fit enough to be a Conductor for a further period upto 60 years. It was contended on behalf of the respondent Corporation that the Corporation has its own Rules.
Regulation No.19 which refers to the retirement lays down that the worker is to be retired at the age of 55 years in an ordinary A course, but the appointing authority has a discretion to extend the period of service upto the age of 60 years if it was desirable. In the present case the appellant was not found fit to perform the duties beyond the age of the retirement, therefore, he was duly retired as per Regulation No.19.
5. Mr. Abdul Moneem Khan has further contended that the appellant did not attain the age of 55 years in view of the fact that at time of recruitment on 1-11-1968, the appellant was issued a card on which his date of birth was mentioned as 17-1-1930, Subsequently, according to the Medical Officer of the respondent Corporation, the appellant's age was shown as 49 years on 14-5-1981 which means that he was born in 1932. In reply to this, the respondent Corporation has relied upon the National Identity Card No. 519-28-241685, dated 29-10-1975 issued to the appellant in which the appellant has himself mentioned his date of birth as 19-6-1928, which means the appellant was more than 55 years of age at the time of his retirement on 14-7-1984. The appellant has failed to rebut this factual position. Therefore, the appellant has no B case. The impugned order of the learned Labour Court is maintained and this appeal is accordingly dismissed.