2001 PLP 1348 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by the 'Courts below‑‑‑Dispute was with regard, payments of benefits of service to the employee‑‑‑Employee after his retirement from service alleged that the Employer Corporation did not give him the proper benefits‑‑‑Civil suit tiled by the employee was decreed by High Court while High Court Appeal was dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Both the Courts below had arrived at the concurrent finding that the employee was entitled to the benefits as claimed‑‑‑No misreading or non‑reading of evidence was pointed out‑‑‑Both the Courts had given valid and cogent reasons for arriving at the findings of facts‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court‑‑‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Amir Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th November, 2000. HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10‑1‑2000 of High Court of Sindh in High Court Appeals Nos.31 and 53 of 1996 (Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Captain (Retd.) M.S. Akhtar) whereby the said appeals were dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was serving as Boeing Captain till 20th July, 1976 and on 28‑9‑1976 he was declared permanently unfit for flying duties. Consequently, as per letter dated 28‑11‑1976 he applied to the Director Flight Operations for his release forthwith under Clause 16, Article V of the agreement and for award of benefits. The respondent was released from PIA service with effect from 24‑6‑1978 and was awarded Rs. 2,63,127 by way of termination benefits. The respondent protested against the wrong determination of his date of retirement. However, the respondent was re‑employed on contract basis as Flight Crew Training and Simulator Instructor for two years. After retirement of the respondent, a fresh agreement dated 1‑7‑1978 was entered into between appellant and Pakistan Airlines Pilots Association (PALPA) whereby emoluments and monetary benefits were reviewed, therefore, the respondent made a representation that he too be paid benefits according to the agreement of 1978, which request was initially refused, but as per letter dated 11‑12‑1980 signed by Director Flight' Operations, the respondent was informed that the Management had approved his request and the date of his release/retirement had been amended to be read as 3‑10‑1978 but no additional payment was made to him as a consequence of which he filed Suit No.422 of 1981 on the original side of the High Court of Sindh claiming an amount of Rs.8,52.497 as the difference between the amount payable under the 1978 agreement and the amount already paid. The said suit was decreed by a learned Judge in Chambers as per judgment and decree dated 12‑12‑1995. The petitioner preferred Appeal No.53 of 1996 and respondent also preferred Appeal No.33 of 1996 which were heard together and dismissed by a learned Division Bench of High Court as per impugned judgment.

3. We have heard the team counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that letter dated 14‑12‑1980 signed by Director Flight Operations was unauthorised, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the benefits as per agreement which was entered into by the petitioner and PALPA in 1978.

4. We do not find any merit and substance in the contention. Both the learned Judge in? Chambers and the learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh have arrived at the concurrent finding that the respondent was entitled to benefits under PALPA Working Agreement of 1978 as per evidence on record. Nothing contrary has been shown. No misreading or non‑reading of evidence has been pointed out. Both the Courts have given valid and cogent reasons for arriving at the said finding of fact. In the circumstances, we find no ground for interference with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge in Chambers and the learned Division Bench. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused and the petition dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑25/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed