' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---The facts are that the appellants were employees of the N.-W.F.P.
Road Transport Board, as drivers and conductors. They retired from service before 7-4-1988 and demanded payment of benefits to which the employees of an establishment are entitled under the provisions of the Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, but their request was refused. This refusal was assailed by them through W.P.No, 249/82, wherein they prayed for issuance of a direction to the General Manager, Road Transport Board and other respondents, to register them under the provisions of the Act retrospectivley and pay the benefits admissible thereunder, in accordance with law. The writ petition was partly accepted vide judgment dated 20-6-1990, which in so far as relevant for the purposes of this appeal is reproduced below:--- "It has been brought to our notice that although the G.T.S. Had decided to extend the benefits of the Act to its employees with effect from 1-7-1988 but subsequently the Collective Bargaining Agent of the G.T.S. Made a request to the Board to grant pension to the Board employees instead of extending the benefits under the Act and it was contended that the petitioners had no cause of action. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that all the petitioners having retired before 1-7-1988 they were not entitled to claim the benefits under the Act, as also on the ground that they had already received all retirement benefits or at least such employees out of the petitioners who had not been employed in the Body Building Workshop were not entitled to claim any benefits whatsoever under the Act.
' We cannot accept the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondents for the simple reason that the provisions of the Act were applied to every industry or establishment with effect from 19th April, 1976 when the Act came into force or at least with effect from 1-7-1983 under the provisions of subsection (4) of section 1 thereof, as amended by the Employees' Old-Age Benefits (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 (Ordinance XVII of 1983), and after the aforesaid date at least the Body Building Workshop was covered by the provisions of the Act and out of the petitioners the persons who were employed in the Body Building Workshop were definitely entitled to claim the benefits admissible under the Act and the failure of the respondent No, 1 to insure the G.T.S. With the Institution was unjustified and Without lawful authority. It is also noteworthy that the benefits admissible under the Act could not be denied to any worker of an establishment for the reason that he had received all retirement benefits if he had not been paid any pension or other benefits which could be claimed under the Act. It may, however, be noted that the drivers and conductors out of the petitioners were not so entitled.
' We have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that only those employees of the Board out of the petitioners who were employed in the Body Building Workshop of the G.T.S. Were entitled to claim benefits admissible under the Act and the employees out of the petitioners who were working as drivers and conductors could not claim such benefits."
2. Before us this judgment has been challenged by both the sides and leave to appeal granted to them. The operative part of the leave grant order is ' as under:-- "The question as to whether the drivers and conductors have been excluded by virtue of an exception provided in section 47 (f) of the said Act having been discussed, the same also has been found fit for examination on the plea raised from their side that they not only worked as drivers and conductors but were also assigned duties on various occasions in the workshop. This appears to be a new element for consideration but in the facts and circumstances of the case it might be necessary to examine it in order to decide the other questions involved in this matter. Accordingly, both the parties are permitted to place on record the material relatable to these questions in addition to the filing of other essential necessary documents. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted in both these petitions."
3. It is to be seen that clauses (a) to (h) of section 47 of the Act enumerate diffent categories of persons to whom the Act does not apply. Clause on which the employees' case is founded runs as follows:- "(I) persons in the service of statutory bodies other than those employed in or in connection with the affairs of a factory registered under section 2(j) of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), or the Mines Act, 1923 (IV of 1923): ' Provided that workshops maintained exclusively for the purposes of repair or maintenance of equipment or vehicles used in such statutory bodies shall not be treated as factories for the purposes of this clause."
' It is not disputed that the respondent/Board maintains a workshop falling within the ambit of the proviso. Relying on the proviso, on behalf of the appellants (CA. 272-P/90) it is contented that though they held the posts of drivers and conductors yet they worked in the Workshop, tested the road worthiness of the vehicles, repaired in the workshop and thus could not be denied the benefits under the Act. In their submissions, the High Court fell in error in not treating them as employees of the Board for the purposes of the Act. Their learned counsel has also invited our attention to the Board's order bearing No, 6481/1/G dated 24-11-1988, which is reproduced below:--- "The Board in circulation has decided to extend the Old-Age Benefits Scheme to all its employees with effect from 1-7-1988 as memorandum of settlement arrived at with the Union on 7-4-1988."
' It is argued that fixation of 1-7-1988 as the target date for grant of benefits under the Act to all the employees resulting in exculsion of those who retired before this date including the appellants is not founded bn any reasonable classification meaning thereby that the appellants were discriminated. On the other hand the Board's case is that the Act did not apply to the respondents (C.A. 273-P/90) and further they have already retired from service, and on retirement received all the dues admissible to them under the law.
4. The points urged in support of the employees' appeal appear to be well founded. Article 25 of the Constitution ordains that "all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law". The State is, however, not prohibited from making reasonable classification for extending such protection. In IA. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 1041) this Court had the occasion to examine the issue whether a special date fixed for grant of any privilege or benefit can form a valid basis of classification, and upon the facts of that case, did not approve of such fixation. Under the aforesaid letter dated 24-11-1988, Old-Age Benefit Scheme has been extended to all the employees of the Board w.e.f, 1-7-1988, irrespective of the non-applicability of the exclusionary clause envisaged by the proviso to sub-clause T of section 47 ibid. Apparently those who retired after 1-7-1988 are covered by this letter, but those who retired before this date stand excluded. The argument that the employees equal in rank and otherwise qualified for grant of benefits, but retiring before the said date have been discriminated does not appear to be without merit. There is nothing on the record suggestive of any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the classification rested on the target date of 1-7-1988. It also seems to us that appellants' claim that they performed duties in connection with the affairs of the workshop has also not been dealt with properly and seriously examined at any stage. The case, therefore, shall have to be sent back to the Authorities below for decision afresh.
' In this view of the matter both the appeals are accepted and the case remanded to the General Manager, N.-W.F.P., Road Transport Board with the direction to re-examine the issues raised by the employees; also hear the departmental point of view and render afresh decision in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.