Hundreds of workers forced to retire due to government regulations allowing employers to sack people at the age of 65 might be able to claim compensation thanks to a discrimination test case going to European Court of Justice in Luxemburg on July 2 and a final decision will be made by the end of this year.

The case is being brought to the European Court by Heyday, an arm of Age Concern and if Heyday succeeds in this case not only will it allow employees in Britain to work past 65 but it will also open the floodgates for those made to retire at that age by employers to seek compensation in UK courts from their former employers.

In the mean time 72 year old Ann Johns who was made to retire at the age of 70 won her case in a court of appeal last week, for the many who have been made to retire at the age of 65 or 70 this gives them hope that a win by Heyday will pave the way for them to make compensation claims against their previous employers.

Despite Mrs. John’s win the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled that her case be put on hold until the Heyday case is ruled on by the European Court of Justice.

According to lawyers around the country there are hundreds of cases which have been placed on hold in anticipation of the outcome of the Heyday case.

Heyday’s main argument is that the UK government did not implement  properly the European directive on age discrimination when the new regulations were introduced in late 2006 banning age discrimination, the UK however  kept 65 as a ‘default’ retirement age allowing employers to terminate the contracts of employees beyond that age at will.

According to the director of Heyday Ailsa Ogilvie ‘1.2 million people working beyond the retirement do so only at the grace of their employer’

She goes on to say "It is absurd to think that as soon as you turn 65, the knowledge and skills that you've built up over the years are no longer valued and needed. Our right to work should not be based on our birth certificates, but on skills and motivation.

"The Government's decision to allow employers to sack people at 65 completely contradicts its stated aim of encouraging longer working lives. We are hopeful that the European court of justice will find parts of the regulations relating to mandatory retirement age unlawful."

Mrs. Johns’ case to the court of appeal was backed by John Wadham, the legal director of The Equality and Human Rights Commission who after the win said: "This is a fantastic outcome for Ms Johns and the many others like her who are challenging mandatory retirement ages in the courts.

"We are all awaiting the results of the Heyday case with great anticipation, and the commission hopes it will deliver real change for people who want to work past 65."

Mrs. john’s former employers however were less than optimistic about the chances of Heyday winning the test trial  and therefore all employees waiting for the outcome of the case as a way to pursue compensation claim for their retirement by saying it’s unlikely her win at the Employment  Appeals Tribunal will have an impact on the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg’s ruling because similar cases on the continent Spain to be exact has been ruled in favour of the employers so the outcome of the test case cannot be predicted. However hundreds of people who feel they have been wronged by being forced to retire still see Mrs. John’s win as a step closer to claiming compensation