1976 PLP 355 (PLC)
SAJJAD AHMAD Versus GAMMON PAKISTAN LTD.
| Citation | 1976 PLP 355 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Ilnd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | SAJJAD AHMAD Versus GAMMON PAKISTAN LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 355 (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 1976 PLP 355 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Ilnd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 355 (PLC) (SAJJAD AHMAD Versus GAMMON PAKISTAN LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Abdul Rashid for Appellant.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A-Workman leaving for abroad after nominating brother to collect his dues from employer-Brother receiving dues and giving receipt in full and final settlement of dues certifying that no further claim whatsoever was outstanding-Nominated brother subsequently making claim for gratuity and filing application before Junior Labour Court under S. 25-A-Junior Labour Court dismissing application in default as nominated brother was not authorised to make such application-Order of Junior Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld:
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 16-4-75 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 for payment of gratuity. Petition was rejected, hence this appeal. Sajjad Ahmad appellant who was a Quantity Surveyor in Gammon Pakistan Limited left the job and went to Dobai after nominating and authorising his brother Muhammad Ehsan Shami to collect the payment of final dues on his behalf from the respondent Company. Accordingly through a receipt Shada Ahmad Shami. Major brother of Sajjad Ahmad collected Rs. 2,420 in full and final settlement of Sajjad Ahmad's accounts with the respondent-Company and gave in writing that he has no further claim whatsoever against the Company. Now he has filed a petition under section 25-A after a due grievance notice to the employer that the account which he has received does not include gratuity. This petition was dismissed in default in absence of the petitioner's representative.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has stressed vehemently that petitioner's representative is estopped from claiming anything in the light of his receipt wherein he has stated that he has no further claim whatsoever. In the second place Sajjad Ahmad belongs to a category of employees who are not entitled for any gratuity. In the third place there is no authority to file petition or appeal with Major Shada Ahmad Shami. He has only authority to collect the payment of the final dues which has been done by him. 1 quite agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the ex parte order of the Junior Labour Court dismissing the petition of the appellant in default. Order of the Junior Labour Court is maintained and appeal is dismissed.