1976 PLP 545 (PLC)
AMERICAN TYRE RE-TREATING Co. Versus BARKAT SHAH
| Citation | 1976 PLP 545 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AMERICAN TYRE RE-TREATING Co. Versus BARKAT SHAH |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 545 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 545 (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 545 (PLC) (AMERICAN TYRE RE-TREATING Co. Versus BARKAT SHAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Razzak for Appellant.
- Mahmood Mubassir for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 2(xxiv)-"Settlement"-Settlement providing payment of gratuity appearing to be quite fair-Contention that settlement having been arrived at during Martial Law period could not be acted upon Settlement, held, covered by definition under S. 2(xxix) and was binding upon parties
Judgment & Decree
S. 2(xxiv)-"Settlement"-Settlement providing payment of gratuity appearing to be quite fair-Contention that settlement having been arrived at during Martial Law period could not be acted upon Settlement, held, covered by definition under S. 2(xxix) and was binding upon parties Razzak for Appellant. Mahmood Mubassir for Respondent. This is an appeal against an award dated 1st August 1972, whereby the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court Karachi, ordered the respondent to be paid all his dues, including gratuity as was described in his affidavit. The learned Court also ordered the payment of Rs. 500 as compensation on the ground that the appellant way avoiding to pay gratuity to the respondent on untenable grounds for a period of more than 2 years Mr. Abdul Razzak, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that the settlement dated llth August 1969, cannot be acted upon, as it was arrived at during the Martial Law period. I (.to not see much force in this contention. I have gone through the settlement. It A appears to be a fair settlement. It is a settlement within the meaning and as defined under section 2 (xxiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The settlement therefore, is binding upon the parties. 2. There is much force in the contention of the learned Representative for the appellant that the Cout could not award Earned Leave for 6 years. Mr. Mahmood Mubassir, the learned Representative for the respondent admits the legal position that the respondent would be entitled to 20 days wages for Earned Leave. 3. Mr. Abdul Razzak, the learned Representative for the appellant, also contended that a compensation of Rs. 500 is out of all proportion consider ing the demand for gratuity, which comes to Rs. 754. 20. I think that the compensation of Rs. 500 is un-reasonable. I could reduce to Rs. 100 (One hundred rupees only). 4. In the result, the order of the learned Court is modified to this extent only that the appellant will pay Rs. 100 as compensation to the respondent and 20 days wages towards Earned Leave.