1. AWARD These are the appeals against the 3 awards of the Presiding Officer of Junior Labour Court No. X, Karachi, wherein the learned Junior Labour Court ordered the respondents to be re-instated with all back benefits. The facts giving rise to the appeals briefly are as under :-- The respondents were in the employment of the appellants since 1959, and on 1-7-1971 their services were terminated on account of old age and efficiency. On 23-12-1972 however they filed applications under section 25-A of I. R. O. for their re-instatement with full back benefits, which were granted.
2. Against that order these appeals have been filed. This order will dispose of all the three appeals.
3. The appellants* plea is that the applications are time-barred as the respondents were retired from services on 1-1-1971 due to old age and efficiency, while these applications were filed on 23-12-1972.
4. The learned Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court has however opined that under subsection
(6) of section 25-A of the I. R. O., the aggrieved workman can file the application in Labour Court at any time. The relevant portion of the award of Junior Labour Court is reproduced as under :-- "I do not agree with the respondent as according to section 25-A(6), it is clear that any workman aggrieved by the termination of his employment as a result of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay-off, lock-out or otherwise alter commencement of this Ordinance may make application to Junior Labour Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the establishment is situated. In the section the commencement of this Ordinance is written which means Industrial Ordinance, 1969, and not the amendment. It is also said in this subsection that notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) to (5) therefore this application is within time." Mr. S. M. Yaqoob the learned Representative for the appellant has vehemently argued that the said amendment to section 25-A of L R. O. was made on 1-11-1972, as such it cannot have any retrospective effect. He has also cited following case-law on this point. General Iron Steel Works v. Abdul Wahab (1) and Textile Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Shoukat Ali (2). In both these cases the learned Chairman Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal after discussing the case-law held that the enactments and amendments are to be generally construed as prospective. The amendment by which subsection
(6) was added to section 25-A of I.R.O, was introduced on 7-11-1972, by Industrial Relations Amendment Ordinance, 1972, and it was provided that it shall come in force at once. It never provided that it will have the retrospective effect. The interpretation of the learned Junior Labour Court that the term "this Ordinance" in subsection (6) means Ordinance of 1969 is contrary to the reason and law; the terms "this Ordinance" however mean the Amendment Ordinance, 1972. ln above case as reported in PLD 1968 Kar.
107. His Lordship Justice Qadeerud-din held that the amendment provision of any Act with right and procedure, u deemed to be prospective. In the instant case subsection (6) to section 25-A of I. R. O. deals with the right and procedure for the workers as such it has no retrospective effect. The respondents were retired from service on 1-7- 1971 when Standing Order 18 was in force which prescribed the mandatory procedure before the workers approached the Labour Court, and the respondents have not adopted that mandatory procedure before filing these applications. The workers were paid their all benefits on 1-7-1971 when they were retired from service, and since then they remained at rest, subsequently in December, 1972 after the amendment to section 25-A of I. R. O. by addition of subsection (6), they rose from their slumber and filed these applications for redress of their grievance. The law cannot help the persons who sleep over their rights I therefore hold that the applications under section 25-A of I. R.
5. O. are time- barred. The leamed Representative for the respondents has however argued that the respondents' services were terminated without any notice or charge-sheet. The record of the Junior Labour Court shows that all the notices and letters issued to the respondents have been produced in which there is clear mention that the respondents were being retired from services.
6. The respondents in their cross-examinations have also admitted that they were retired from service.. There is no ban imposed on the Employer for retiring the workman on1 account of age.
7. They are well within their rights to do it in the interest of] efficiency in work. I I accordingly set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court, and accept the appeals. Announced in the open Court this 5th day of September, 1973. (1) 1972 PLC 215 (2) 1970 PLC 386