1993 PLP 916 (PLC)
and another Versus ABDUL RASHID and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 916 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | and another Versus ABDUL RASHID and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 916 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 916 (PLC)?
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: 1993 PLP 916 (PLC) (and another Versus ABDUL RASHID and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Qadir for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance notice and grievance petition‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Limitation starts from date of accrual of cause of grievance‑‑‑Railway employee claiming encashment of un-availed LPR‑‑‑Petition resisted on grounds of being time barred from date of retirement order‑‑‑Grievance, in circumstances, held, would start from date of refusal of claim and not from date of retirement order. Respondents in person.
Judgment & Decree
Respondents in person. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986. The two appeals captioned' above challenge the decisions dated 18‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby the appellants have been directed to pay to the respondents 180 days salary besides 55% running allowance in lieu of L.P.R.
2. Admittedly, the respondents did not avail of L.P.R. and applied for the payment of 180 days salary. It has been argued that the respondent did not opt for the Revised Leave Rules of 1980. It has not been shown either that Revised Leave Rules were duly notified in Pakistan Railways Gazette or that they were got noted down by the respondents. Rules revised by some competent authority of the appellant, so could come to the knowledge of the respondents if they had been published in Pakistan Railways Gazette or were separately brought to the notice of the respondent. Apart from it, it is the duty of the employer to invite options, where giving of the same is necessary according to the rules. No evidence has been pointed out that it was done by the appellants. So, the respondents were not debarred from claiming salary for 180 days in lieu of L.P.R
3. The other point argued is that the grievance notice and the grievance petition of both the respondents were time‑barred. The line of argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that within three months of the passing of retirement orders grievance notice should have been given. The argument is without force. Period of limitation starts from the date of accrual of cause of grievance. The respondents did not challenge the orders of retirement, so time did not start from the date of retirement. Time could start from the date of refusal. There is no evidence when the respondents were refused salary for 180 days.
4. The last point argued is that since the respondents were not in service at the time when they brought the grievance petitions, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction. No doubt it has been held in 1985 PLC 1053 but the said ruling stands challenged before the Supreme Court and thus has not yet gained finality.
5. As a result, the grievance petitions are ordered to be returned to the respondents with the direction that if the Supreme Court holds that the persons not in service on the date they brought the grievance petitions are covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the appeals would stand dismissed and the impugned decisions passed by the learned lower Court upheld. A.E./224/Lb.P Orders accordingly.