1995 PLP 516 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI through Divisional Superintendent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 516 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI through Divisional Superintendent |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 516 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 516 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 516 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI through Divisional Superintendent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Hassan Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee who worked for about 6 years with employer, became mentally ill and remained under treatment and was declared fit for duty after about 21 years of his illness, but during the period of his said illness his services were terminated‑‑‑Grievance notice was sent by employee/petitioner after he was declared fit for duty at time when he had ceased to be an employee and grievance petition was filed by him after 9 months of serving grievance notice‑‑‑Grievance .petition of petitioner was rightly dismissed by Court being time‑barred‑‑‑Since services of permanent employee were terminated simpliciter without any enquiry, he was entitled to notice pay, gratuity and other dues on account of his illness, which he should have been paid without putting him to further mental stress‑‑On failure of employer to pay such dues, employee could file petition under Payment of Wages Act.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee who worked for about 6 years with employer, became mentally ill and remained under treatment and was declared fit for duty after about 21 years of his illness, but during the period of his said illness his services were terminated‑‑‑Grievance notice was sent by employee/petitioner after he was declared fit for duty at time when he had ceased to be an employee and grievance petition was filed by him after 9 months of serving grievance notice‑‑‑Grievance .petition of petitioner was rightly dismissed by Court being time‑barred‑‑‑Since services of permanent employee were terminated simpliciter without any enquiry, he was entitled to notice pay, gratuity and other dues on account of his illness, which he should have been paid without putting him to further mental stress‑‑On failure of employer to pay such dues, employee could file petition under Payment of Wages Act. MA. Hassan Malik for Appellant. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1995. Heard Mr. MA. Hassan Malik. The appellant was appointed by Pak Railways as Mechanic Helper on 31‑12‑1962 at Karachi Cantonment Railway Station Workshop. After 19‑11‑1968 he became mentally ill. He then remained under treatment of Psychiatry Department, Jinnah Hospital and he was declared fit for duty only on 25‑2‑1992 but meanwhile his services were terminated by the Railway on 7‑11‑1969. The appellant sent his application for resumption of duty on 26‑4‑1992 and went on sending reminders. The last one being on 10‑1‑1993. Thereafter, he filed grievance petition. The learned Labour Court dismissed the petition as time‑barred as appellant was terminated from service on 7‑11‑1969 and thereafter he ceased to be a workman. That the petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was therefore time‑barred. Thus, the grievance notice was sent on 26‑4‑1992 and the present petition was filed after 19‑1‑1993 late by 8 or 9 months. Petition was therefore hopelessly time‑barred. I cannot therefore interfere with this decision of the learned Labour Court but I find that the appellant is still not perfectly healthy and he continues his treatment by taking medicines and it is possible that he may get the relapse. Since his services were terminated simpliciter without any enquiry and he was a permanent workman he is entitled to notice pay, gratuity and other dues on account of his illness. These should' be paid by the Railway promptly without putting the appellant to further mental stress. But if that is not done, he can file his petition under the Payment of Wages Act.
2. With these observations the appeal is otherwise dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2432/Lb.S Order accordingly.