1988 PLP 629 (PLC(CS))
CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE and another Versus GHULAM RASOOL
| Citation | 1988 PLP 629 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE and another Versus GHULAM RASOOL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 629 (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 1988 PLP 629 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 629 (PLC(CS)) (CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE and another Versus GHULAM RASOOL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar All Shah for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 15th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Wages‑‑Workman wrongfully retired but recalled and put to duty‑‑Intervening period treated as leave without pay on the plea that no duty was performed by workman during that period‑ Workman having had not performed duty without any fault on his part was entitled to wages for such period‑‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition claiming wages upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Zafar All Shah for Appellants. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1987. The decision dated 16‑5‑1987, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the recovery of his wages for the period from 7‑2‑1980 to 27‑7‑1981 was accepted.
2. The facts are that the respondent, who had served the appellants for about thirty years, was firstly retired on 6‑2‑1980. The order of retirement was recalled and on 28‑7‑1981 the respondent was asked to resume duty which the respondent did. On 25‑7‑1984 the respondent was retired from service. When he was put back on duty on 28‑7‑1981, the period from 6‑2‑1989 to 27‑7‑1981 was treated as leave without pay for the reason that during the said period the respondent had not performed his duties. The above‑mentioned facts are admitted and the case of the appellants is that since the respondent did not perform duty from 6‑2‑1980 to 27‑7‑1981 he was not entitled to the wages. On account of the order of retirement the respondent could not perform his duties during the disputed period, therefore, it was not his fault and he rightly claimed wages for the said period. Since according to the wrong order of his retirement dated 6‑2‑1980 the respondent ceased to remain in service from the said date up to 27‑7‑1981, he was entitled to the wages and there was no justification in treating the said period as leave without pay. If the respondent had failed to perform his duties during the disputed period for any fault of his, of course, he could not have claimed the wages for‑the said period.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since in the grievance petition no prayer was made by the respondent for setting aside the order of treating him on leave without pay, the learned lower Court erred in allowing wages for the said period. The argument has no force. Since the respondent expressly claimed in his grievance petition wages for the disputed period, it means that he was not satisfied with the order of treating him on leave without pay and thus it cannot be said that he did not challenge that order. The grievance petition of the respondent, therefore, has been rightly accepted.
4. As a result of what has been said above, there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in limine. A. E. /372/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.