' This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 15-2-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the order of retirement passed against the respondent was set aside and he was directed to be put back in service with back benefits, holding that the age of superannuation was sixty years.
2. So far as the age of superannuation is concerned, I have held in many cases that according to rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules, the same is sixty years by virtue of amendment made in the said Rules by the Board in the 49th Meeting held in November, 1976. The Board had raised the age of superannuation to sixty years adopting the notification of the Punjab Government issued for Government servants.
At the time the said notification was considered in the meeting a note was put up by the office to the effect that so far as workers were concerned the age of superannuation was 55 years according to Regulation 19 of 1965 Regulations, but in spite of it the Board passed an order that the age of superannuation will be sixty years for all the employees of the Board. The 'words "all the employees" appear to have been used to clear the intention that the Board did not agree with the office note and wanted that there should be uniformity so far as the age of superannuation of all the employees of the Board was concerned. It has been argued that the word "employee" has been defined in 1959 Rules, whereas in the Regulations of 1965 the word "workers" is used instead of "employee". This is so but the definition of worker may not include other employees but the definition of employee includes workers also. This cannot be said that the workers are not working under the Board or are not getting their salaries from the Board. So, they are covered by the definition of employee and since in the 49th meeting purposely the words "all the employees" were used, the intention is clear that the age of superannuation was sixty years for all the employees including the workers. No doubt in the 89th meeting held in March, 1980 the Board expressed a different view but the same is not effective" as Rule 33.1 as amended in 49th meeting is intact and was not amended in 89th meeting. If the Board intended that for the workers the age of superannuation will be different i.e, 55 years under Regulation 19 of 1965 Regulations, the object could be achieved by making necessary amendment in Rule 33.1 of 1959 Rules. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly held that the age of superannuation for the respondent was sixty years.
3. However, there is another defect in the case of the respondent for which the appeal must conditionally succeed. It has been held by the Lahore High Court in 1985 PLC 1053 that the persons who were not in service at the time of bringing the grievance petition are not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The High Court has interpreted the words 'is employed' to mean that only those persons are covered by the definition of workman who are in service at the time the order passed by the employer is challenged. As every order passed by this Tribunal and the Labour Courts is subject to writ jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, the dictums laid down by the said Court are to be followed. But since the ruling cited above has not become final as it stands challenged before the Supreme Court in various appeals, it cannot be finally held that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction.
4. As a result, I uphold the decision of the learned lower Court on merits but setting aside the decision on the ground that the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction as held in 1985 PLC 1053 accept the appeal. However, if the Supreme Court holds that the persons who are not in service at the time they bring the grievancepetitions are covered by the definitions of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the present appeal shall stand as dismissed.