DECISION ' This is Revision Application filed against the order, dated 23-9-1985, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Raees M.
Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq has raised objection that the order was appealable but no appeal was filed. He contends that this Revision Application, filed after more than four years, was not maintainable.
4. Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui, on the other hand, contended that the respondent has filed this Revision application because of the decision of the Division Bench of Sindh High Court in the case of M/s. A.E.G. Telefunken Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1989 PLC 525.
5. No evidence was led by the parties before the learned Labour Court but they contended that the case be decided on the pleadings of the parties.
6. Admittedly the appellant was retired at the age of 60 years. His contention was that under Notification the Government had relaxed the age limit of ex-servicemen by ten years. The contention of the respondents is that this relaxation is for the purpose of recruitment but retiring age was not extended by this Notification. The Notification has been produced as Annexure A/1 to the grievance petition. The relevant portion may be reproduced as under:- "2. In terms of the establishment Division's O.M. No, 10/S/60-DV, dated 6th November, 1962 in filling up ex-cadre posts, released/retired officers of the Armed Forces should be preferred to candidates from the open market, provide they possess requisite educational and other qualifications and are otherwise, suitable and the maximum age limit, if any, may be relaxed upto a maximum of 10 years or the number of years an officer has actually served, whichever is less."
' It will clearly show that this relaxation was for the purpose of recruitment but did not extend retiring age by 10 years.
7. It is not disputed In the pleadings that the retiring age in the respondent establishm en( i, 60 years and that the appellant had been retired before reaching the age of superannuation but he claimed that retiring age be extended by ten year., in view of the aforesaid Notification. In the case of A.E.G. Telefunken Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. There was no retiring age fixed in the establishment at the time worker was employed but subsequently it was fixed as sixty years therefore it was held by learned Division Bench that such rules or regulations which affect right of workers can be only applied prospectively unless accepted by workers. The reported case is obviously distinguishable from the instant case as there is no evidence to show that at the time of appointment of the appellant no retiring age had been fixed under the rules. There is not even such plea on his part. His plea that his retiring age may be extended by ten years in view of the aforesaid Notification is not tenable.
3. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Revision Application is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of laches and also because no C appeal was filed against an appealable order.