1986 PLP 21 (PLC)
EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus Messrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAK) Ltd., KARACHI
| Citation | 1986 PLP 21 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus Messrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAK) Ltd., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 21 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 21 (PLC)?
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: 1986 PLP 21 (PLC) (EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus Messrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAK) Ltd., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Applicant. S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1985.
- 2. Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmad, Advocate, argued on behalf of the Union while Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, learned counsel has argued on behalf of the Company.
Judgment & Decree
(e) 19 x 20 days 380 days (f) 20 x 20 days 400 days (b) It is hereby reiterated that the payment of gratuity from 10th completed years to 14th completed years of service shall continue to be calculated on the following basis. Number of years of completed service. Gratuity amount (a) 10 x 10 days 100 days (b) 11 x 11 days 121 days (c) 12 x 12 days 144 days (d) 13 x 13 days 169 days (e) 14 x 14 days 196 days (c) It is agreed that a period of six months or more will count as full year for the purpose of calculation of Gratuity Payments. (d) All other terms and conditions of Gratuity shall remain unchanged."
4. The difficulty was that in the words of clause (a) of the agreement, quoted above the years contemplated were 15 years "or more". The difficulty was that the words "or more" in ordinary context would mean 15 years or more upto any number of years. It would not limit to completed years only to 20 years. The arguments of Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned counsel were that because in the following Schedule given below the clause (a) only 20 years are mentioned, hence, the interpretation of the words "15 years or more" would be limited to 15 years upto 20 years. The arguments of Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned counsel were that the Schedule was only illustrative and was not exhaustive. To this, he has referred earlier agreements, namely, agreement ending on 30‑6‑1980 which expressly mentions the completed years of service from 15 to 20 years of completed years of service. The very preamble of the agreements entered into byl the parties indicate that maximum years are mentioned to be 20 years. Only the agreement ending on 30‑6‑1984 mentions completed years 151 years or more. The word "or more" mentioned in number of completed years may be 21, 22 or 23.
5. There is no ambiguity in the words "or more" and it mentions completed years to be more than 20 years. The Schedule given below is only illustrative. Mr. Qamaruddin Hassan's arguments are not sound.. The Management of the Company cannot refuse the calculation on the basis of new clause to limit the service completed years to years 20 in B number. My interpretation is that the word "or more" do not limit the period of service to be 20 years. M.I. Orders accordingly