1984 PLP 922 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ
| Citation | 1984 PLP 922 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 922 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 922 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1984 PLP 922 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Muhammad Naqi for Appellant.
- Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 4th July, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Pensionary benefit-Railway worker claiming to have opted for pension before retirement date-Photo copy of option letter duly endorsed by immediate superior produced-Disallowing pension benefits, in circumstances, held, not proper and Labour Court justi fied in accepting grievance petition-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3).
Judgment & Decree
S. Muhammad Naqi for Appellant. Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 4th July, 1983. The decision dated 24th February, 1982 passed by the learned Presi ding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal. The appellant had challenged two things in his petition. He urged that the date of his birth was erased and made as 1919, whereas it was 1929. His other claim was that he had opted for pension. He in his statement withdrew the objection about his date of birth but claimed that he be given pensionary benefits and he was prepared to refund the G. P. fund received by him. 2. The option of the respondent was produced by the appellant itself which is Exh. R-2. It is, dated 25th December, 1978. It was received on 31st December, 1978. It is thus clear that the respondent did opt for pensionary benefits before he was actually retired. Objection is recorded on Exh. R-2 by some officer in red ink to this effect but it was a photo-stat copy and original was still with the respondent. The case of the respondent was that he had delivered his option to Station Master, Raiwind and got his signatures in token of receipt. Exh. P-4 is the copy which is initialed under which the seal is of the station Master. It is thus clear that even original was sent. It may have been misplaced, so the respondent sent Exh. R-2 photo-stat. Since the respondent has not disowned Exh. R-2, it was immaterial if it was original or photo-stat. Since it stands amply proved that the respondent had before retirement opted for pension, h was entitled to get pensionary benefits. The appellant purposelessly disallowed pension and fought the matter. The learned lower Court thus was justified in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent. 3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it. A. E. Appeal dismissed.