HAFIZULLAH KHAN Versus WORKS MANAGER, MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORYLIMITED, ISKANDARABAD, DISTRICT MIANWALI

This is an appeal challenging the order dated 18‑6‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition was returned to the appellant for want of jurisdiction following 1985 PLC 1053.

2. The appellant was retired from service and he challenged the said order in his grievance petition. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since retirement is a mode of termination of service, it is covered by Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and since the appellant has a right guaranteed by the said Standing Order and appellant is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(i), the learned lower Court wrongly relied upon 1985 PLC 1053. I do not find any force in this argument. Standing Orders Ordinance does not provide for retirement nor fixes the period of superannuation. On completion of the age of superannuation retirement automatically takes place and it is not necessary to pass an order of termination. Notice of retirement or order of retirement is passed simply to inform the employee concerned that he has completed the age of superannuation and stands retired. Such a plea may be raised in cases where the order of retirement has been challenged as mala fide asserting that on account of mala fide intention his services were terminated under the cloak of retirement, but this is not the case of the appellant. It has also been argued that section 3 of the Standing Orders Ordinance guarantees a right to the appellant. The said section reads: "In every industrial or commercial establishment the conditions of the employment of workmen and other incidental matters shall, subject to the other provisions of this Ordinance, be regulated in accordance with the Standing Orders". The provision of retirement may be said to be one of the conditions of employment but sine Standing Orders Ordinance does not deal with the question of retirement, the said condition cannot be subject to the provisions of the said Ordinance and section 3, therefore, is also not helpful to the appellant. This is important to note that section 3 does not provide anything about the retirement. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1985 PLC 816 and 814 but they are not germane to the facts of the present case. In the former ruling it was held that Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable to it as the conditions contained in proviso to section 1(4)(c) were not present. The other point was with regard to entitlement to back benefits. The latter ruling also does not deal with the point, which is under discussion in the case in hand. 1980 PLC 1105 also is not helpful and it appears that the learned counsel without taking the trouble of going through it has cited it. The question involved was as to what was the number of employees and, therefore, whether according to section 1(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, the said Ordinance was applicable or not. 1983 PLC 898, however, needs discussion. It has been held that Service (Retirement) Rules were not produced, therefore, it was observed that they were not statutory rules. In the absence of the presence of statutory rules it was held that Standing Order 12(1) was applicable and the employer was bound to pay one month's wages under Standing Order 12(1). In the present case too this point is to be considered whether there are any statutory rules regarding retirement and if it is found that there are no statutory rules, then the point will be worth consideration whether the retirement without any provision was a termination and if it was in violation of Standing Orders Ordinance, whether there was any right guaranteed by the said Ordinance. Without considering such points the learned lower Court was not justified in relying upon 1985 PLC 1053 in which the definition of workman given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance was considered and not the one given in Standing Orders Ordinance.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for redecision of the point whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction in the light of the observations made above. The learned lower Court shall have to see whether there are any rules regarding retirement and if there are no rules, the question for consideration would be if the order violated any provision of Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

A.E./186/Lb.P

Case remanded.