Appeal, No. 178 | Pa. | Sep 29, 1964
Opinion by
Appellant was an employee of the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania for thirty-seven years, during which period he had attained the age of fifty-five. On April 15, 1960, his employment was terminated by the unilateral action of the company, for reasons, if any, which do not appear of record.
In 1962, appellant applied for pension payments under Bell’s Employees’ Pension Plan, administered by an employees’ committee. The appellant’s application was refused by the company and the committee.
The sole question to which we must address ourselves is the sufficiency of the complaint in stating a cause of action, and all well pleaded facts in the complaint must, for this purpose, be accepted as true. Kutsenkow v. Kutsenkow, 414 Pa. 610, 202 A. 2d 68 (1964).
Appellant alleges that a vested right had accrued under the terms of the pension agreement prior to the termination of his employment. Section 4 of the plan, which was made a part of the complaint, provides, inter alia: “(1) (a) All male employees who have reached the age of sixty years and whose term of employment has been twenty or more years . . . shall if they so request, or may at the discretion of the Committee, be retired from active service and, upon such retirement shall be granted service pensions, (b) Any employee whose term of employment has been thirty years or more, or any male employee who has reached the age of fifty-five and whose term of employment has been twenty-five or more years, . . . may, if the case is approved by the Committee as appropriate for such treatment, be retired from active service and, upon such retirement, shall be granted a service pension.” (Emphasis supplied).
Clearly, appellant was ineligible for retirement and pension rights under subsection (1) (a), not having reached the age of sixty years required by that section.
Appellant also urges that the pension plan was part of an offer to enter into a unilateral contract, which offer he had accepted by his services. Thus, he argues, his employment for 37 years constituted an acceptance of and consideration for the unilateral offer. This contention clearly sounds in assumpsit, and as such, the merits cannot be considered in this action in equity. If appellant is correct, he has an adequate remedy at law which ousts the jurisdiction of equity.
Finally, appellant argues that the plan constituted deferred wages, and that a contract exists by virtue of promissory estoppel. This issue is likewise cognizable in assumpsit, provided appellant is correct.
We, therefore, reach the inevitable conclusion that the complaint, on its face, does not disclose a prima facie case or a case containing the requisites for equitable jurisdiction, and hold that the action of the court below, in sustaining the demurrer, was proper.
Decree affirmed. Each party to bear own costs.