1988 PLP 792 (PLC(CS))
DEPARTMENT CHOOHARKANA, SHEIKHUPURA Versus CHHOTA
| Citation | 1988 PLP 792 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT CHOOHARKANA, SHEIKHUPURA Versus CHHOTA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 792 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 792 (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 792 (PLC(CS)) (DEPARTMENT CHOOHARKANA, SHEIKHUPURA Versus CHHOTA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Azam Bhaur for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Pension and gratuity‑‑Workman retiring after rendering more than ten years regular service prescribed under Rules for admissibility of gratuity and pension‑‑Grievance petition for gratuity and pension, held, was rightly accepted by Labour Court in circumstances. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Pension and gratuity‑‑Workman retiring after rendering more than ten years regular service prescribed under Rules for admissibility of gratuity and pension‑‑Grievance petition for gratuity and pension, held, was rightly accepted by Labour Court in circumstances. Muhammad Azam Bhaur for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 14‑1‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7 Gujranwala whereby the grievance petition of the respondent.‑for gratuity and pension was accepted.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the date of birth given in service record was corrected from 8‑9‑1924 to 1‑7‑1922, therefore, the period of‑ the regularisation in service of the respondent fell short of ten years and he was not entitled to gratuity. Even if the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, the respondent had completed ten years regular service inasmuch as he was made regular on 1‑7‑1972. The other thing is that in spite of the fact that his date of birth was changed in the service record from 8‑9‑1924 to 1‑7‑1922, yet since the respondent was actually retired on 22‑5‑1983, therefore, he had on the date of retirement more than ten years' regular service. He, therefore, has been rightly allowed gratuity and pension by the learned Lower Court.
3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./534/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.