ALI BHOY Versus MESSRS GOLDEN INDUSTRIES LTD.
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant an impugned order, dated 11‑3‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.
This is an appeal filed by the appellant an impugned order, dated 11‑3‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was in service of the respondent industries as Chief Accountant since 1‑3‑1962 and till his alleged retirement from service, his service record was unblemished and the work was quite satisfactory. As claimed by the appellant a dispute arose between the management and the appellant when he refused to manipulate the accounts of the respondent establishment to enable them to pay less amount of sales tax to the Government, and as such the Directors were annoyed and were inclined to throw him out of employment. On 22‑10‑1978 the appellant was stopped from entering into the premises and was issued a charge‑sheet that he along with one Sabir Hussain had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 31,000.00. Therefore an F.I.R. was lodged with the police against the appellant and subsequently, he was arrested and thereafter was released on bail. That during the pendency of this criminal case, the respondent establishment had also held a domestic enquiry against the appellant resulting in his termination of services, vide letter, dated 26‑4‑1978 and as a consequence thereof, the appellant was ordered by the Labour Court to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. The respondent establishment filed an appeal before this Tribunal, but the same was dismissed on 3‑3‑1980. Thereafter the respondent establishment had submitted a Review petition before this Tribunal and this petition was also dismissed vide order, dated 25‑3‑1980. The respondent establishment was very much inclined to see the appellant out of their employment by all" costs, therefore, they preferred a Constitutional petition before the Hon'ble High Court and this petition too, was dismissed on 21‑8‑1983. Even after the above results of the different attempts by the respondent establishment, the appellant was not properly reinstated in service and paid his full back benefits and other legal dues. Despite the above facts, the respondent establishment had retired the appellant from his services, with effect from 2‑4‑1984 on the ground that he had attained the age of superannuation i.e.60 years, further the case of the appellant was that as his correct date of birth was 22‑6‑1925, therefore, his retirement from service was premature and illegal. Moreover, it was also a case of the appellant that there were no service Rules or the Rules of Retirement of an employee in the respondent establishment, therefore imparting such rules in the establishment only for the sake of the appellant, was quite discriminatory and not sustainable. The appellant being aggrieved with these actions of the respondent establishment had approached the learned Labour Court for the redressal of his grievances.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition mainly on the ground that after having been retired from service, the appellant was not a workman as defined in section 2(vii) of I.R.O.1969, hence he cannot maintain the grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.0.1969. On merits, it was contended that in view of the retirement policy of the respondent establishment, the appellant was correctly retired from service after having been attained such age of superannuation. The respondent establishment had denied allegation of the appellant that he was made a victim of revenge by the respondent management in view of the Post litigation between them.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits/in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour had dismissed the grievance petition, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Siddiqi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment. It is an admitted position that according to the National Identity Card, Insurance Policy and the passport, the appellant did not attain the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on the relevant time, therefore, the appellant's retirement with effect from 2‑4‑1984 was premature and not sustainable. The learned Labour Court was quite wrong in rejecting the authority of these solid documents in evidence. On merits, it is crystal clear that the appellant in evidence. (sic) innocent and not involved in any misconduct and so he was also acquitted from the charge by the criminal court. When this charge could not be established in a Criminal Court then, how it can be presumed that the same charge of misconduct was proved in domestic enquiry resulting in the dismissal of the appellant. However, I am of the view that the premature retirement of the appellant is nothing but is a mala fide and revenge by the respondent establishment. In view of this legal and factual, position, I would hold that the appellant be retired from service when he attained at the actual age of 60 years i.e. on 27‑6‑1985. Therefore, the appellant be also given all legal dues and other benefits.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I set aside the impugnea order and allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be retirea from service on attaining the actual age of 60 years i.e. on 27‑5‑1985.1 He be also paid legal dues and other benefits whatsoever, they may be, forthwith.
M.Y.H./1010/Lb.S
Appeal allowed.