1. AWARD SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).- In this appli--cation under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant-Union seek re-instatement in service of Bashir Abroad, who was retired on reaching the age of -55 years.
2. Bashir was appointed on 15th February 1960, as L. D. C., and was subsequently promoted as U. D.
3. C. in the respondent --Society He was retired from service on 26th July 1969, when he attained the age of 55 years. The case of the applicant-- Union is that, according to the rules and the conditions prevailing in the respondent-Society, the age of superannuation was 10 years and not 55 years. Besides, the Government of West Pakistan had also fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years by Notification dated 30th September 1969. It is claimed that Bashir Ahmad was still in a fit state of health when he was retired and had a good record of service ere shown by the Service Certificate issued to him by the respondent. He was also a party to Industrial Dispute No. 57, pending before the Industrial Court, when he was made to retire from service. He was also not paid Gratuity or one month's notice pay, which was a contravention of the term -,1 Settlement, dated 4th February 1963, arrived at between the parties. Hence according to the applicant-Union, the retirement of Bashir Ahmad from service wag illegal and against the rules of natural justice.
4. The respondents, In their Reply Statement, state that the age of superannuation was fixed at 55 years by the Boar of Directors of the respondent-Society, in accordance with the Rules framed by the Government of West Pakistan, and Bashir Ahmad was informed accordingly by Office Memo. dated 16th January 1969. The Notification of the Government, fixing the age of superannuation at 58 years, was issued much later than the date when Bashir Ahmad had retired. The Industrial Dispute No. 37 of 1967 had been rejected in major portion. Besides, Bashir Ahmad was retired on reaching the age of superannuation and not on any charge. Hence, he war also not entitled to Gratuity or Notice Pay. The respondents further plead that Bashir Ahmad does not fall within the definition of "workman", since his duties included supervision of the Ice-Plant, and that the application is time-barred.
5. During the proceedings, the applicant-Union examined Bashir Ahmad while the respondents examined Rafiqul Hasnain, their Administrative Officer. In the arguments, the learned Representative for the respondents did not press the legal objections that Bashir Ahmad was not a workman, and that the application was time-barred.
6. Therefore, the only question for determination is whether the retirement of Bashir Ahmed from service was legal and in accordance with the Rules. The applicant-Union have referred to the Service Rules of the Fishermen's Co-operative Society, as adopted -by the Board of Directors on 7th August 1964. Rule 5(iv) provides that the age of superannuation will be 60 years provided the incumbent of the post is 'medically or otherwise fit. The respondents have rolled upon the Resolution of the Board of Directors, dated 15th July 1967, whereby the said Rule was, amended and the age of superannuation was fixed at 55 years. The resolution shows that this was done in accordance with the Government rules in force. The respondents' witness states that this amendment was duly approved by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karachi. The respondents have also relied on the Bye-laws of the respondent-Society, which authorise the Board of Directors to make amendments in the Rules.
7. It has been urged on behalf of the applicant-Union, firstly, that the rules cannot be varied or amended to the disadvantage of the employee. Secondly, that the employee would be governed by the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
8. Ordinance, 1968, and not by the rules framed by the respondent-Society. Lastly, reliance has been placed on the admission of the respondents' witness that certain persons were engaged in service even after the age of 55 years or given extension after that age. He has, however explained that these persons were technical hands and were employed on contract basis.
9. Therefore, the relaxation of Rules in the case of such persons would not be applicable In the case of Bashir Ahmad. Similarly, there is no force in the contention that Bashir Ahmad is governed by the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This Ordinance contains no provisions regarding the age of retire--ment of an employee. Therefore, the employee would be governed by the rules or the prevailing practice In this respect of the particular establishment where he is employed. Now, It Is true that, ---when Bashir Ahmad entered service, the age of superannuation was 60 years. But, the Board of Directors, I sheis empowered by the Bye-law' of respondent-Society to amend and alter the rules. Therefore, the retirement of Bashir Ahmad at the age of 55 years' In accordance with the amended rules of service, cannot be said to be illegal or improper. The amendment of the rule regarding the age of superannuation appears to Gave been made with a view to bring It In conformity with the Government rules which have also been similarly amended.
10. There remains the question whether Bashir Ahmad is entitled to Gratuity. The respondents' witness admitted that they had a Gratuity Scheme since April 1965, and every employee was entitled to it after completing 5 years' service from that date. It appears that Bashir Ahmad was not given Gratuity because he had not completed 5 years' service since April 1965. However, subsequently, the learned Representative for the respondents produced a Resolution of the Board of Directors, dated 20th December 1971, whereby it was decided that Bashir Ahmad -be given Gratuity from the date of his appointment.
11. Therefore, whole the claim of Bashir Ahmad for re-instatement is not granted, his claim for Gratuity is allowed. The application is disposed of accordingly.