' These are three Appeals bearing Nos.149, 150 and also a cross-Appeal No,157 of 1998. The first two appeals have been filed by Mujaeebur-Rehman (hereinafter referred to as the worker) whereas the third appeal has been filed by the management.
2. Although the facts of the first two appeals are similar, yet it needs to be mentioned that the first case was filed by the appellant only on the receipt of a letter, dated 8-4-1992 (Annexure R/1 at page 59 of Grievance Application No,47 of 1993). In furtherance of the said letter, the appellant was retired by letter, dated 12-8-1992 retiring the appellant w,e,f, 15-8-1992. Bye-law No,10 of the Staff- Bye-Laws stipulates for retirement from service, which is reproduced as under:-- " (10)Retirement: --
(i) An employee shall be retired from service on attaining the age of fifty-eight years or after completing twenty-five years of his/her active qualified service, whichever occurs first, provided that in suitable cases the Authority at his discretion may extend the period of service for three years or more, but not more than a year at a time."
3. Alongwith the first Case No,120 of 1992, the appellant also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., praying for an interim injunction against the management which was dismissed on 12-8-1992 (page 185 of R&P in Case No,120 of 1992). On 13-8-1992, the appellant filed a Revision Application bearing No,KAR-473 of 1992 against the said order, dismissing the injunction application, which was dismissed in limine by order, dated 29-9- 1992, passed by this Tribunal.
4. In Case No,120 of 1992, after receipt of the intimation letter that he will be retired on 14-8-1992 (A.B.), the appellant gave a grievance notice to the management, dated 6-7-1992. The worker filed an Application bearing No,120 of 1992, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 on 30-7-1992 in the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi.
5. After the receipt of letter of retirement, dated 12-8-1992, the worker gave a fresh grievance notice on 29-10-1992, which was duly replied by the management by letter, dated 15-11-1992. After the worker filed second grievance petition which was registered as Case No,47 of 1993 in the Fifth Sindh Labour Court on 19-1-1993.
6. After reply statement/affidavits-in-evidence were filed and the parties were cross-examined, and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, both the cases were decided by a consolidated order, dated 30-4-1998. The operative part of the order reads as under:- - "Therefore, relying upon 1991 SCM R 2087, the applicant is not entitled for the back benefits but he is entitled to the reinstatement in service and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant and consider the applicant if suitable for extension for the period of three years or more. Findings accordingly."
7. On querry by this Tribunal as to what happened after the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, learned counsel for the management, stated at the bar that the worker did neither approach the management at all personally nor by any letter (voluntarily stated that he is even ready to make this statement on oath). The worker's counsel did not deny the said statement, made at the bar.
8. The facts, giving rise to these two appeals, briefly stated, are that the appellant joined the service of the Jang Publication in 1967 as Copy Holder. At the time of his appointment, there seems to be no rules of service as to the age of retirement. Lateron, the Service Rules of Jang Publication were framed, fixing the age of retire' at as 58 years or completion of 25 years of service, whichever is earlier (Annexure R/10 at page 75 of Case 47 of 1993) has been placed on record. There is the acceptance letter of bye-laws, dated 10-3-1975 signed by the worker. In the year 1977, when M/s. Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Limited was incorporated as a separate company, now bye-laws were framed (Annexure R/11 page 77 in Case No, 47 of 1993) and its acceptance by the worker has been placed on record as Annexure R/12 (page 93 of the same case).
9. The point which was very vehemently argued before me by the learned counsel for the worker that there was no retirement age, fixed at the time of appointment and, as such the rules, framed thereafter, will not be applicable to him. Reliance was placed by him mainly on the case reported as A.E.G. Telefunken Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1989 PLC 525). It is a judgment by a Division Bench of our own High Court, but this authority, goes against him because it has been observed at page 529 of the report that. "Normally rules or regulations affecting the substantive rights of the workers when framed by the employers can only be applied prospectively unless accepted by the worker" (Underlined by me). Mr. Warsi, on my querry, admitted frankly that the appellant did agree to be governed and bound by the bye-laws of Independent Newspapers Corporation and put his signatures thereon. So, there remains no cavial between the parties that the bye-laws, framed in 1979, were duly consented to by the then existing employees, the appellant (worker). Appendix-1 of the rules were duly signed by the worker on 20-5- 1979. This authority was followed by Mr. Justice (Rtd.). Agha Ali Hyder in Service Mess (Formerly Services Club), Karachi and others v. Budha Khan and others (1993 PLC 371), the then Chairman of this Tribunal wherein, it was observed that, "In my humble opinion the principle laid down in Telefunken's case remains very much in the field". Reference was also made to another Judgment, rendered by Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, the then Chairman of this Tribunal, in the case reported as District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation v. Ghulam Younus and another (1992 PLC 761), wherein, it was, inter alia, observed that, "whereas an employee is merged into new administrative set up, he would be governed by the Rules of new administrative unit to the extent that they were not less favourable than the rules and regulations under which he was governed in previous establishment". There should be no cavil on the principle laid down by the learned Chairman, but the fact remains on record that the previous management known as Jong Publication had also framed its rules and bye-laws as to the age of retirement to be 58 years or 25 years of service, which, in the new set up, was retained as the same as to retirement, which was duly consented to by the worker.
10. No other point or plea was argued before me by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order as to reinstatement, is. Upheld in both the cases and both the appeals, filed by the workers, stand dismissed.
12. In consequence of dismissal of the two Appeals Nos.KAR-149 of 1998 and 150 of 1998, filed by the worker against the management, the Appeal No,157 of 1998, filed by the management against the worker Mujeebur Rehman, is allowed and the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court No,5, stands set aside. Even otherwise the said order has become infructuous, as the worker failed to report for duty to the management.
' Announced in open Court, this the 20th October, 1999.