JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

There are two appeals before us. They raise common questions of trite law. They were therefore heard together. At the conclusion of arguments on 5 April 2001, we reserved judgment. The facts that form the core of these appeals may be shortly stated.

The respondent in each of these appeals was at all material times employed by the appellant. At the time they commenced their employment with the appellant, their respective contracts of service did not specify the age at which they would have to retire. It was only much later; several years after the employment had commenced; that the appellant informed the respondents that they would have to retire at the age of 55 years. Eventually the respondents were asked to retire. They took the position that it was not open to the appellant to retire them at 55 years of age. They said that they ought to be permitted to work until they attained 60 years of age. Their cases were referred to the Industrial Court which held for the appellant. The respondents then applied to the High Court for certiorari. The learned judge who heard the application granted it. He quashed the award. He held that the respondents had been dis