Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BANARAS KHAN VS Respondent: KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
1988 P L C 26
1988 P L C 26
(Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind)
Present: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal
BANARAS KHAN
versus
KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Appeal No.KAR‑121 of 1986, decided on 2nd March, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑ Chowkidar of Karachi Road Transport Corporation challenging retirement at 55 years of age‑‑Petition dismissed by Labour Court as not maintainable on grounds that petitioner was not a workman and relaxations/extension in age of retirement was discretion of management and continuity of service after superannuating age could not be claimed as of right‑‑Order of Labour Court was upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1987.
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 23‑4‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the service in the respondent Corporation on 27‑1‑1982 at the age of 50 years that is the year of 1932, as had been shown in the Identity Card issued by the respondent Corporation but, all of a sudden he was issued a retirement order dated 26‑10‑1985 on the ground that he had reached to the age of superannuating i.e. the age of 55 years. Therefore, being aggrieved, the appellant submitted his grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondent/ Corporation resisted the petition on the ground firstly that the identity card and the departmental identity card is not proof of the age/birth, and secondly, that there is no provision A of retirement in the Labour Laws to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, hence, the grievance petition of the appellant was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent Corporation. Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the appellant being a chowkidar/security guard, was not entitled to maintain grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, and that the relaxation/ extension of the age of retirement of a worker in the K. T. C. is the discretion of the management, so, the appellant on reaching at the age of superannuation i.e. 55 years has been rightly retired from service. Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant has nothing to rebut to the submission of Mr. Azmatullah Khan. I, therefore, hold that the appellant has no case and he was rightly retired from service, therefore, the learned Labour Court was correct to dismiss his petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.
6. For the above reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
A.E./964/Lb.S.
Appeal dismissed.