DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 8th November 1990 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,IV, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro for the appellant and Mr. Mohammad Latif Saghar for the respondent and also I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The admitted facts of the case appear to be that the date of birth of respondent is 11-2-1932. He was employed as workman by defunct-Sindh Road Transport Corporation (S.R.T.C.) in 1968. His services were merged in Karachi Transport Corporation (K.T.C.) on 1-2-1977 on the same terms and conditions as in S.R.T.C. He was retired on 22-10-1989 under Regulation No,19 of the S.R.T.C.
Aggrieved by this retirement order, he served grievance notice upon the appellant and then filed grievance petition.
4. After the respondent was taken up in the employment of K.T.C., the rules and regulations of K.T.C.
Would be applicable to him to the extent that they were not less favourable than the rules and regulations under which the respondent was governed as employee of S.R.T.C. Admittedly under K.T.C. Rules the age of retirement is 60 years, therefore even if the age of retirement under S.R.T.C.
Rules was 55 years, still the retirement rule of K.T.C. Which is, more favourable would be applicable to the case of the respondent, who at the time of his retirement was employee of K.T.C. The mere fact that the respondent has claimed retirement benefits under S.R.T.C. Rules would not deprive him of the application of favourable rules of K.T.C. It appears that the retirement benefits of S.R.T.C.
Are more favourable than the retirement benefits of K.T.C. It is an established principle, that where an employee is merged into new administrative set up, he would be governed by the rules of the new administrative set up to the extent they are not less favourable than the rules and regulations under which he was governed in the previous establishment.
5. It is an admitted fact, that in a settlement arrived at between K.T.C. And C.BA. On 30th May, 1988, the retirement age of K.T.C. Workers was fixed at 58 years. The C.BA. Has no power to enter into any agreement with the management by which rights already conferred upon the workman could be taken away to their disadvantage. Even otherwise the agreement reached between the C.BA. And the K.T.C. In 1988, could have prospective application, but cannot adversely affect the terms and conditions of service of the workman who was already in service, who would be governed by the terms and conditions of service existing before such settlement if they are more favourable.
6. The Collective Bargaining Agent is appointed under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, with the main purpose to undertake collective bargaining with the employer on matters connected with the employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of work of the workmen. The Industrial Relations Ordinance is welfare legislation for the purpose of welfare and betterment of the working conditions of the workmen. The purpose of institution of Collective Bargaining Agent is to bargain for the improvement of the terms and conditions of workmen and not to barter away or agree to the diminishing of the rights or privileges already conferred upon the workmen under the Rules or the Settlement. (The Collective Bargaining Agent did not act in accordance with the spirit of its appointment as C.BA. While agreeing to reduce the age limit of retirement from 60 years to 58 years, which under no stretch of imagination could be considered to be in the interest of the workman. It is also against the spirit of section 4 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Section 4, no doubt specifically prohibits the collective agreement from taking away the benefits available to the workman under the provision of Schedule, but, in my opinion, it would also be applicable to the rights or benefits available to the workman under any existing Rules of Service. It may also be pointed that under Standing Order 2-A, every workman at the time of his appointment, transfer or promotion shall be provided with an order in writing, showing the terms and conditions of his service. If in an establishment, there are Rules of service including the Rule with regard to age of retirement, such Rules would be considered as terms and conditions of service of the workman at the time of appointment and such terms and conditions would be protected under section 4 of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
7 In view of the above legal position, the learned Labour Court has rightly held the retiring age of the respondent to be 60 years. There is no merit in this appeal, which is according dismissed.