DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 24-7-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 23-6-1968, he was appointed as Conductor by the then Karachi Omnibus and, on 1-2-1977, he was transferred and taken over by the Karachi Transport Corporation. That in the year 1980, the appellant was promoted as Traffic Assistant and that prior to that in the year 1978, he was removed from service but subsequently, he was re-instated in service.
That the appellant was served with a letter, dated 24-9-1983 granting him leave preparatory to retirement from 25-9-1983 to 22-3-1984. That the date of birth of the appellant was hardly 55 or 56 years of age and, therefore, he could not be prematurely retired from the service till 60 years of age. That, as there was no Service Rules prescribing the retirement age in the respondent Corporation therefore, the appellant sent a grievance notice on 20-6-1984. That the appellant was physically fit to work and the retirement from service was unlawful and unwarranted, hence he submitted the grievance petition.
3. The respondent Corporation filed legal objections before the learned Labour Court wherein they have stated that the appellant was retired from service, on 24-9-1983 so he was granted leave from 23-9-1983 to 22-3-1984 and that the grievance notice was sent by him to the respondent Corporation after nine months of the retirement, hence the grievance petition was barred by time and not maintainable. That, lastly, the case of the respondent Corporation was that the appellant was rightly retired from service under Departmental Rules as per terms and conditions of his appointment and that there was practice to retire employees at the age of 55 years and that it was the discretion of the Corporation to extend it to 60 years.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined in the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan on behalf of the respondent Corporation. It was contended by Mr. S.P. Lodhi that the exercise of the discretion was not done in the present case as the appellant was fit to perform his duties for a further period upto 60 years, and that the Labour Laws were silent as regards to the age of retirement. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Azmatullah Khan for 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 course, but, the appointing authority has discretion to a extent the period of service upto the age of 60 years if it was desirable. He further contended that the contract of appointment laid down that the employees would be governed by the General Rules A and the instructions are issued or framed from time to time, as adopted or approved by the Road Transport Corporation and the appellant was bound by the said Rules, therefrom, he was duly retired as per'; Regulation No. 19. Mr. Azmatullah Khan has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1980 PLC 180 and 1979 PLC 275 Mr. S.P. Lodhil for the appellant has failed to submit any authority in rebuttal
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I find that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the B appellant. I, therefore, maintain the impugned order and would dismiss this appeal.