DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 14-4-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,1, Karachi, whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was retired on 27-8-1988 on the ground that he had completed 32 years of service. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro had relied upon Rule 22.1 of the K.T.C. Rules under which the age of superannuation is 60 years but the competent authority has been given the power "to review the case of Corporation's employee when he is about to complete twenty-five years of service or when he is about to complete fifty years of age whichever is erlier in order to satisfy itself of that person's further usefulness to the corporation and if the competent authority is not so satisfied it may direct the compulsory retirement of the corporation's employee concerned from service upon his completing twenty-five years' service or fifty years of age, as the case may be".
4. The bare reading of this provision would show that the competent authority has to exercise option and decide the further usefulness of the employee just before he completes 25 years' service or 55 years of age and retire him from service if it so decides as soon as 25 years of service or 55 years of age are completed. In the instant case admittedly the authority has exercised this option after the appellant completed 32 years' service, therefore, this retirement is not in accordance with the above rule.
5. Mr.Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan has pointed out that there was an agreement between Management and the CBA dated 30-5-1988. Under clause (7) of this agreement retirement age is fixed 58 years extendable up to 60 years at the discretion of the employer while other conditions remained unaltered. As already pointed this retirement is not strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22.1. This rule is punitive as it takes away the job from employee and therefore is to be construed strictly which has not been done in this case. As such I allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Labour Court and direct the reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back benefits. However, the respondents would be at liberty to retire him if he reaches the age of superannuation, in accordance with their Rule 22.1 as amended by the collective agreement.