1976 PLP 489 (PLC)
TURNER GRAHMS OF PAKISTAN LTD. Versus WAHEEDUL HASAN
| Citation | 1976 PLP 489 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TURNER GRAHMS OF PAKISTAN LTD. Versus WAHEEDUL HASAN |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 489 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 489 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 489 (PLC) (TURNER GRAHMS OF PAKISTAN LTD. Versus WAHEEDUL HASAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Idris Qureshi for Appellant.
- M. S. Khan Zada for Respondent.
- 2. The respondent was a peon employed by the appellant in 1954. He was requested in January, 1971, to resign, to which he agreed because of the benefits that were offered to him. The order of the appellant-Company is at page 19 of the lower Court record, accepting his resignation and directing the Accounts Department to settle his accounts. The account, however, was not settled, with the result that the respondent was obliged to make an application to the Labour Court on 30th August 1971, through Mr. M. S. Khan Zada, Advocate.
- 3. Mr. Idris Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant, raised two points before me, namely :
- 4. There is not much force in the first contention that the learned ` Advocate was not given an opportunity to be heard. In this connection, reference may be made to the Order Sheet dated 8th October 1973. It reads as under:
- 11. Mr. Khan Zada, the learned Advocate for the respondent, claims costs on the ground that his client has been unnecessarily harassed since 1971. In this connection, Order Sheet of 6-12-71 may be reproduced as under:
Headnotes / Summary
S. O. 12 (6) read with S. 9-Protection of existing conditions of service-Gratuity-Workman on resignation claiming gratuity Claim contested on grounds of existence of provident fund scheme Records indicating payment of gratuity to workmen-Usage, held, established and workman, in circumstances, held, entitled to gratuity in view of provisions of S. 9.
Judgment & Decree
I propose to dispose of these contentions separately.
4. There is not much force in the first contention that the learned ` Advocate was not given an opportunity to be heard. In this connection, reference may be made to the Order Sheet dated 8th October 1973. It reads as under: "R & P received from Labour Court No. I, under transfer order of SLAT, vide No. SLAT/(305)-13/73-3298 dated 5-10-73., Hearing as already fixed on 9-10-73 for order in Labour Court No. L"
5. Order Sheet dated 9th October 1973 reads as under: "Parties present. Order announced in open Court. Application allowed."
6. In this connection, a reference may be made to the Memorandum of Appeal. Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Appeal reads as under : "That on the 9th of October, 1973 when the appellants appeared before the 1st Labour Court they were informed by the Reader that their case stands transferred to the III Labour Court, from where a notice will be issued for hearing."
7. The above is not in keeping with the Order Sheet of 9th October 1973, as Labour Court No. III, it seems, was sitting on that date in Labour Court No. I, in the main building. Had Mr. Idris Qureshi cared to attend the Court, it appears to me, that what is stated, in Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Appeal, is not factually correct, as Court No. III on 9th October 1973, was actually sitting in Court No. I and not in the building that it sits these days.
8. On the second point, Mr. Idris Qureshi made a reference to Standing Order 12 (6) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The relevant portion of the provision referred to above by Mr. Qureshi, reads as under: "Provided that, where the employer has established a provident fund to which the workman is a contributor the contribution of the employer which is not less than the contribution made by the workman, no such gratuity shall be payable for the period during which such provi dent fund has been in existence."
9. Mr. Idris Qureshi contended that in the appellant-Company there is a Provident Fund Scheme. This has not been denied by Mr. Khan Zada. He however, relied on section 9 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, which reads as under: "Nothing in this Ordinance shall affect any law custom, usage, award or agreement in force immediately before the promulgation of this Ordinance in so far as such law, custom, usage, award or agreement ensures conditions of employment more favourable to workmen than those provided in the Standing Orders.
10. Mr. Khan Zada in this connection referred to page 75 of the lower Court record which gives a list of 42 persons, who on resignation had been paid gratuity from 1954 to 1966 and submitted that this proves usage. On the other hand, Mr. Qureshi relied on the decision of 1st Civil Judge, Class 11, Karachi, in which one Mr. Sam was held not be entitled to gratuity. There is nothing on the record to show that any appeal was filed against this decision dated 10th August 1966. In this connection, it is noteworthy that the last man on the list at page 75, was paid gratuity on 13th October 1966, much after the decision of the learned Civil Judge. The only point to "consider in this connection is whether section 9 of the Standing Orders Ordinance applies or not. In my view usage has been established by the A respondent. The provision of section 9 of the Standing Orders Ordinance is attracted.
11. Mr. Khan Zada, the learned Advocate for the respondent, claims costs on the ground that his client has been unnecessarily harassed since 1971. In this connection, Order Sheet of 6-12-71 may be reproduced as under: "Parties present. The Representative for the respondents states that they will pay the amount to the applicant before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 7-1-72."
12. This, however, never was implemented and the matter dragged on till the award was made on 9th October 1973. Mr. Qureshi, however, contended that what he intended was that he will pay the legal dues of the respondent and not what was claimed by him. On the face of it, there is no mention of legal dues. I will construe the order sheet of 6-12-1971 to mean that on behalf of the appellant Mr. Quraishi had agreed to pay the dues of the respondent but on some ground or the other he continued to linger on the case till it was concluded on 9th October 1973. The representative of the respondent is entitled jto cost. I would award Rs. 200 as costs to be paid to Mr. Khan Zada within one week from today.