1986 PLP 308 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUMTAZ ALI
| Citation | 1986 PLP 308 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUMTAZ ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 308 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 308 (PLC)?
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: 1986 PLP 308 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUMTAZ ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Safdar Jang for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Pay fixation‑‑Rules of establishment providing grant of premature increment on promotion for purpose of fixation of pay in higher pay scale and also option to workman to get his pay fixed after earning increment in old pay scale‑‑Pay thus fixed after earning increment in old pay scale and by allowing one advanced increment, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Safdar Jang for Appellant. Date of hearing: 1st July, 1985. The decision, dated 7‑8‑1984 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The facts are that the respondent was appointed as Inspector in scale No.6, on 20‑7‑1953. In 1974 he was promoted to the post of S.T.E. in scale No.9, and his pay was fixed at Rs.305, Special pay of Rs.25 was also included in his pay increasing the pay to Rs.330 p.m. Since the initial stage of scale No.9, was Rs.332 the pay of the respondent was fixed accordingly. The respondent got fixation of his pay deferred in accordance with explanation 2 of para. 37 of letter No. T‑2/3‑57‑II, dated 20‑6‑1963 and got his pay fixed on 18‑12‑1974 after one increment in old pay had fallen due to him. His pay was fixed at Rs.348 by adding one premature increment. On the allegation that the auditor objected to it the pay of the respondent was reduced to Rs.332. The Auditor was examined as R.W.1 but he admitted that in cases of promotion one premature increment could be allowed. He did not say that the respondent could not get his increment. Since para. 37 referred to above allows the incumbents to get their fixation deferred the appellant', did not make any mistake by not fixing the pay of the respondent as' soon as he was promoted to the post of S.T.E. and fixing his pay on 18‑12‑1974 after increment had fallen due in the old scale No.6. The appellant, therefore, has rightly fixed the pay at Rs.348, p.m. and) there is justification to reduce his pay to Rs.332. In these circumstances) the learned lower Court was justified in directing that the pay of the respondent be fixed at Rs.348 w.e.f. when it was initially fixed.
3. AS a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismissed the same. A.E. Appeal dismissed.