' This appeal under section 37(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, has been directed against order, dated 30-9-1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, IIIrd Labour Court, Mekran Division at Hub whereby the grievance application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the above said Ordinance against his superannuation has been dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was a permanent worker of the respondent's Industrial Establishment since 1-9-1990 where more than 50 workers have been employed who was governed by the provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 and Factories Act and vide letter, dated 1-4-1998 the appellant has been retired from employment of the respondent's establishment. ,which is mala fide, illegal and contrary to the Standing Order, 1968, inasmuch as; the retirement order mentioned herein fore has been issued by an incompetent person. Subsequently on 9-5-1998 according to the appellant grievance notice was also served on the respondent but the same has not been replied satisfactorily. It has been alleged in the application that retirement of the appellant being illegal amounts to the termination of the service, as no age limit for the retirement has been prescribed by law, accordingly prayed in the application that he be reinstated in his service with all back benefits.
3. The respondent by means of rejoinder contested the grievance application on various grounds of law and facts.
' The appellant in support of his case filed his affidavit and the learned counsel for the parties on 5- 9-1998 submitted a joint application contending therein that the controversy between the parties since pertains to the age of retirement, therefore, the question may be decided in view of the pleadings of the parties and without recording evidence after hearing the parties This application was allowed by the learned Labour Court accordingly the parties' learned -counsel have been heard and finally vide impugned order the grievance application has been dismissed. It may be noted that besides the appellant another worker namely Askari Hussain of the respondent's establishment was also retired from his employment who too after service of grievance notice filed application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the same Labour Court being Application No,18 of 1998 and since identical law points and facts are involved in both applications, therefore, both the applications have been disposed of by a common order impugned herein by the appellant. The learned Labour Court in view of the pleadings of the parties keeping in view the documents filed on record including the contents of the affidavit of the appellant framed the following points for determination:-- "Whether the applicants have been retired from services by the respondent illegally which amounts to termination of services ?"
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon contended that no age limit under the law for the time being in force i,e, I.R.O., 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 has been prescribed, therefore, in absence of any physical disability being suffered by the appellant, his retirement from the employment amounts to the illegal termination of his service. Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon on the analogy of the age limit prescribed for the retirement of a Government servant contended that the appellant could not have been legally retired from his employment before attaining the age of 60 years, he however, during the course of arguments reiterated about the contents of the rejoinder to the grievance application to the extent that the appellant was appointed by the respondent's establishment on 1-9-1990 vide order of appointment who attained the age of 55 years on or about 1st of April, 1998 which has been placed on record by the respondent alongwith its rejoinder. To supplement his contention Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon placed reliance on the reported judgment i,e, PLD 1994 SC 304 and 1992 PLC 665.
5. Mr. Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the respondent contended that vide appointment letter, dated 1-9-1990 the appellant besides other specified conditions inducted in the employment by the respondent's establishment subject to the condition that he shall stand retired from service/employment of the respondent-Company upon attaining the age of 55 years and, thus, the age of the retirement having been fixed at the time of contract of employment, as also duly accepted and acted upon by the appellant, he has been in terms of the employment contract lawfully and properly retired from service vide impugned order, dated 1-4-1998. The learned counsel submitted that undisputedly the appellant has attained the age of 55 years whereafter he has been retired from the employment in accordance with law and since no age limit has been prescribed by any law for the time being in force concerning an Industrial Establishment hence the age limit for retirement fixed in the contract of employment or in the appointment letter shall be treated as final for the purpose of retirement of a worker as in the instant case. According to the learned Advocate the learned Labour Court seized of the matter attended to all aspects of the case and on admitted facts resolved the controversy between the parties in the light of the pleadings of the parties and admitted documents and on having considered the affidavit of the appellant.
6. I have considered the contention put forth on behalf of the parties' learned counsel in the light of the record of the case which has been gone through including the impugned order and the case- law cited by them. Admittedly the appellant was employed as a permanent worker in the respondent's establishment vide order of appointment, dated 1-9-1990 which contains stipulation to the effect that he shall be retired from the service of the respondent-Company on attaining the age of 55 years and vide letter, dated 1-4-1998 issued on behalf of respondent's establishment he has been retired at the age of superannuation i,e, 55 years on 30-4-1998 in terms of the specified condition about the age of retirement contained in the appointment letter, accordingly, the grievance notice has been replied in the terms. Both the parties as hereinfore noted admitted the documents placed on record and their respective pleadings who accordingly expressed that in order to set at rest the controversy about the age limit of the appellant for the purpose of retirement, no evidence is required to be led by, any of the party in the proceedings, thus; the learned Labour Court appropriately struck the point of determination who reproduced hereinabove. The learned counsel for the appellant remained unable to show that any age limit for retirement of a worker has been prescribed under I.R.O., 1969, or under any other law for the time being, in force to which a worker of the industry concerned is subject hence in my considered view the age of retirement of a worker will be governed by a settlement or by a contract of employment or by the regulation or resolution of an Industrial Establishment made applicable at the time of the appointment of a worker. In the case in hand Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon failed to satisfy that any settlement, resolution or regulation of the respondent's establishment providing a different age limit for the retirement of the appellant was applicable and, therefore, in absence of any such settlement, regulation or resolution of the respondent's Company, the age limit specified in the contract of employment of the appellant duly acted upon by him, shall be, the age of superannuation and there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant did not attain the specified age of 55 years at the time of his retirement as per the disputed letter about his retirement from employment of the respondent-Company. PLD 1994 SC 304 cited by the appellant's learned counsel pertains to a criminal matter and has wrongly been quoted, whereas; 1992 PLC 665 covers altogether a different proposition.
' The learned Labour Court having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the retirement order/letter and the undisputed pleadings and the documents placed on record correctly came to the conclusion that the appellant has been properly and lawfully retired from the service and consequently dismissed the grievance application.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.