2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPER LIMITED/THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL PRESS TRUST, ISLAMABAD Versus Sh. ABDUL MAJEED and another
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPER LIMITED/THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL PRESS TRUST, ISLAMABAD Versus Sh. ABDUL MAJEED and another |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPER LIMITED/THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL PRESS TRUST, ISLAMABAD Versus Sh. ABDUL MAJEED and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Talib Hussin, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.
- M. Rafiq Shad, Advocate Supreme Court with A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- Nemo for Respondent. No.3.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 2005.
- 4. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length who could not show any illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal which could have entitled the petitioner to the grant of leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-7-2004 of the Federal Service Tribunal at Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 411(L) of 1999).
S. 19
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Service Tribunal granted pension to the employee holding him entitled to it dismissing preliminary objection of employer with regard to limitation on ground that receipt of pension was a continuing cause of action and could be agitated at any time
Employer could not show any illegality in impugned judgment of Tribunal which could have entitled him to grant of leave in terms of Art.212(3) of the Constitution
Petition was dismissed and leave refused
Employee having denied pension to the employee for almost 10 years, and having dragged him into litigation before all kinds of fora, employer was directed to pay Rs.5,000 'to employee as costs.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The first respondent felt aggrieved of non-payment of pension to him since 1-12-1996. He approached the Labour Court for the redress of his said grievance but on account of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the said respondent approached the Federal Service Tribunal to seek the same relief. The petitioner opposed the said respondent's appeal before the learned Tribunal initially on the ground that his appeal was barred by time and also for the reason that whatever was due to the said respondent had been paid to him.
2. The learned Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection vis-a-vis the limitation on the ground the receipt of pension was a continuing cause of action and could be agitated at any time. This objection was not sustainable also on the ground that on account of the fluent situation of law, no one was sure of the forum before which such grievance could be agitated.
3. On the merits of the case, it was found by the learned Tribunal that it had already declared through a judgment dated 4-10-2003 passed in Appeals bearing Nos. 1339 to 1367(L) of 1999 that the employees of the PPL were entitled to the grant of pension. It was further found by the learned Tribunal that no evidence had been placed on record to show either that the pension had been paid to the first respondent or that he had waived his said right in any manner.
4. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length who could not show any illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal which could have entitled the petitioner to the grant of leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.
5. The petitioner had denied pension to an employee for almost 10 years and had dragged him into litigation before all kind of fora. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000 to the said respondent, as costs, within one month and the copies of the receipts evidencing the said payment shall be filed with the Assistant Registrar of this Court within the said period of time, for the information of this Bench. H.B.T./C-38/S Petition dismissed.