1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---We have heard the above three petitions for their final disposal at Katcha Peshi stage. The petitioners in the three petitions were Employees of Afghan National Bank Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited who is respondent No,2 in C.P. Nos. D-1167 & 1168 of 1999 and respondent No,3 in C.P.
2. No, D-1205 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). The petitioners in C.P. Nos.1167 & 1168 of 1999 were retired from the service of the Bank vide Memo. Dated 5-9-1994 on crossing the age of superannuation i,e, 60 years while the petitioner in C.P. No, D-1205 of 2000 was retired vide Memo.
3. Dated 13-8-1996 with effect from 14-8-1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners in all the three petitions served grievance notice on the Bank under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was replied by the Bank and relief was denied. The petitioners thereafter filed grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 in Vth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi. The matter was contested by the Bank. The Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing their counsel passed two separate orders dated 24-1-1998 in the case of petitioners in C.P. Nos. D-1167 & 1168 of 1999 by which grievance petitions were accepted and prayer for reinstatement with full back-benefits was allowed. In the case of petitioner in C.P. No,1205 of 2000, the Labour Court passed order on 16-3-2000 by which his grievance petition was dismissed.
4. The Bank filed appeal against the order of the Labour Court in respect of petitions in C.P. Nos.D-1167 of 1999 and 1168 of 1999 before the respondent No,1 while the petitioner in C.P. No, 1205 of 2000 also filed appeal before the respondent No,l. The learned respondent No,1 after hearing the parties in C.P. Nos. D-1167 and 1168 of 1999 passed its decision dated 9-4-1999 by which the appeals filed by the Bank were allowed and the orders passed by the Labour Court were set aside. The learned respondent No, 1 also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in C.P. No,1205 of 2000 vide its decision dated 26-4-2000. The petitioners in all the above noted three petitions have assailed the decision of the learned respondent No,l.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners' services have been terminated illegally and that there was no retirement age prescribed in the establishment of the Bank. He stated the decision of the learned respondent No,l.
6. Upholding the retirement of the petitioners is contrary to law and the petitioners are entitled to continue in the employment of the Bank. On the other hand Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the Bank has contended that there was industrial dispute pending between the CBA of the Bank employees and the Bank at the time of retirement of petitioners in C.P. Nos. D- 1167 and 1168 of 1999 which industrial dispute was resolved through an agreement dated 24-10- 1995 clause-3 of which provided that the age of retirement/ superannuation would be 60 years or completing of 40 years service and that such clause shall take effect from 23-8-1994. He contended that the cases of petitioners in C.P. Nos. D-1167 & 1168 of 1999 are convered by this clause of the agreement whereas the petitioner in C.P. No,D-1205 of 2000 was retired after the date of agreement and his case too was covered by the said clause of the agreement. He stated that the agreement is in accordance with law and is binding upon the petitioners and stated that the petitions be dismissed. He relied upon an unreported judgment dated 2-5-2001 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,33-P of 1998 Haji Akhtar Ali Qizilbash v. Messrs Afghan National Bank and others, and an unreported judgment dated 24-12- 1998 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No, D-504 of 1998 Shaheen Airport Service v.
7. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another.
8. ' We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
9. The learned respondent No,1 has maintained the retirement of the petitioners on attaining the age of superannuation i,e, 60 years on the basis of the agreement made between the CBA of the bank employees and the Bank. The relevant clause of the agreement is as follows:-- "3. AGE OF RETIREMENT ' It is agreed that age of retirement/superannuation would be 60 years old or completing 40 years of service. The age of concerned employee will be acceptable as per record maintained by the management office. This clause would take effect from 23-8-1994 (1-6-1973) and no worker/employee if retired or would be retired after this date, would have any grievance on this Court. This item is not for limited period and it will be effective for future. Also and it will be a part of Service rules 1960 (1336)."
10. ' The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners' services were terminated against the provisions of Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 as the terminations were without one month notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice is based on the premises that there was no age of retirement prescribed in the establishment of the Bank and therefore their terminations were illegal. In the case of Haji Akhtar Ali Qizilbash (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Bank, the question was of retirement of banks' employee and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment has observed as follows: "5. We have heard the learned counsel for me parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. Section 25-A(1) of the I.R.O. Enunciates that a worker may bring his grievance in respect of his rights guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force, in the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or Collective Bargaining Agent within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises. The phrase used in the above subsection "his grievance in respect of his right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law of any award or settlement for the time being in force" is very significant which implies that no grievance for the rights which have not been guaranteed or secured by or under any law or award er settlement for the time being in force, can be made. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to show any law, award or settlement so as to bring his case within the scope of section 25-A of the I.R.O. Whereby his rights, not to retire him at the age of sixty years or above, were guaranteed or secured. In absence of any statutory provision award or settlement, the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent Bank was that of a master and servant and as such he could not take shelter under the Labour Laws. In such an eventuality, even the grievance notice and the grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O. Were not maintainable. The learned High Court although did not consider this aspect of PLC (Lahour) the case, nonetheless it held the grievance notice and the petition of the petitioner to be time-barred and as such, dismissed the same in Constitutional jurisdiction, which it was competent to do as the judgments passed by the Labour forums were found to be without jurisdiction.
11. ' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above quoted observation has categorically laid down that in the absence of right guaranteed or secured by or under any law, award or settlement in respect of age of retirement, the grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 will not lie and the labour forums in this respect will have no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any law which may govern the question of age of retirement nor any award in this respect. The application of the agreement/settlement dated 24-1-1995 made between the C.B.A. And the Bank was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the right to be governed by the agreement/settlement is also excluded. The principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as quoted above is binding on us and has application to the case of petitioners in C.P. Nos.1167 & 1168 of 1999 who have been retired on crossing the age of 60 years before the agreement between the C.B.A. And the Bank was made. Thus on their date of retirement, the petitioners in C.P. Nos.D-1167 and 1168 of 1999, could not have maintained application under section 25-A or I.R.O., 1969 as there was no right guaranteed or secured to them by or under any law, settlement or award providing that they could not be retired on attaining the age of 60 years.
12. In this view of the matter, the grievance petitions of petitioners in C.P. Nos.D.1167 and 1168 of 1999 were not maintainable.
13. ' The case of the petitioner in C.P. No, D-1205 of 2000 is, however, on different footing as on the date of the agreement between the C.B.A. And the Bank, he was in the employment of the Bank and his terms and conditions of service were governed by the agreement. The relevant provision of subsection (1) of section 39 of the I.R.O. 1969 is as follows:-- "39. Settlement and awards on whom binding.---(1) A settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding or otherwise between the employer and the Collective Bargaining Agent or an award of an arbitrator prescribed under section 31, or an award or decision of a Labour Court delivered under section 37 or the decision of the Tribunal under section 38 shall---
(a) be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute;
(b) be binding on all other parties summoned to appear in any proceedings before a Labour Court as parties to the industrial dispute, unless the Court specifically otherwise directs in respect of any such party;
(c) be binding on the heirs, successors or assignees of the employer in respect of the establishment to which the industrial dispute relates where an employer is one of the parties to the dispute; and
(d) where a Collective Bargaining Agent is one of the parties to the dispute, be binding on all workmen who were employed in the establishment or industry to which the industrial dispute relates on the date on which the industrial dispute first arose or who are employed therein after that date."
14. ' The above provision shows that where the C.B.A. Is one of the parties to the dispute, the settlement arrived at shall be binding on all workmen who were employed in the establishment or industry to which the industrial dispute relates. The petitioner being employed in the establishment of the Bank at the time of agreement and in terms of the aforesaid provision of law, the agreement will be binding on him and he having been retired in terms of the agreement, the same was in accordance with law.
15. ' In view of the above discussion, we find no merits in the three petitions which are dismissed alongwith listed applications.