1988 PLP 460 (PLC(CS))
RASHEED ABBAS ZAIDI Versus DEPUTY MANAGER, WORKSHOP MECHANIZED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN, SUKKUR and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 460 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | RASHEED ABBAS ZAIDI Versus DEPUTY MANAGER, WORKSHOP MECHANIZED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN, SUKKUR and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 460 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 460 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 460 (PLC(CS)) (RASHEED ABBAS ZAIDI Versus DEPUTY MANAGER, WORKSHOP MECHANIZED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN, SUKKUR and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Applicant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd August, 19$
7. This is a suo motu revision application filed by the applicant, Rasheed Abbas Zaidi Against an appellate Impugned order dated 8‑1‑1985 passed by the Sind Labour Court NO.VII, Sukkur, who had set aside the order passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sukkur under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, after attaining the age of suprannuation was retired from service as Clerk Accounts Branch in the M.C.P. Workshop, Sukkur. He claimed that at the time of retirement, he was neither paid the recreational allowance equivalent to half of his one month's pay contrary to the respondent's letter, dated 3‑7‑1983 and also he has not been paid encashment of 180 days earned leave in terms of an agreement; dated 19‑4‑1981 arrived at between the management and the C.B.A. Union. After recording the evidence of both the parties and in view of the documents brought on the record, , the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act had allowed the application of the applicant directing the respondents to make payment of Rs.6,489 against his claim. Thereafter, the respondents filed an appeal against this order before the learned Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur who in his appellate jurisdiction has passed‑ the impugned order.
3. The respondents resisted the petition of the applicant mainly on the grounds, firstly, that the applicant had given in writing that he will not claim salary in lieu of L.P.R. So he was not entitled to the encashment of 180 days leave preparatory to retirement, and secondly, he was drawing salary more than Rs.1,000.
4. I have perused the present suo motu revision application. Nemo is present on behalf of any party. From the evidence on record it was not established that the total wages of the applicant were less than Rs.1,000, therefore, it was rightly held by the learned Labour Court that the learned Authority had no jurisdiction. Further, there is also an admitted position that the applicant had himself given in writing that he did not want to avail the L.P.R. Thus, I am of the view that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and there is nothing improper or illegal to be interfered with. I, therefore, maintain the impugned order.
5. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the present suo motu revision application has no substance and it is hereby dismissed. A.E. /1082/Lb.S Revision dismissed.