1995 PLP 586 (PLC)

Muhammad Rafiq, U.D.C. for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 13th May, 1986. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 13‑4‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and a sum of Rs.7,743.92 was allowed as encashment of refused Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) of 132 days.

2. The respondent had applied for L.P.R. for a total period of one year but the matter was kept pending by the appellant on the ground that leave account was not available. L.P.R. for 190 days only was allowed vide order Exh. P‑4, therefore, the respondent claimed encashment for the remaining period of 132 days. Before the learned lower Court also the appellant failed to produce the leave record even though opportunity was afforded to it for the same. Since the appellant was maintaining the leave account, it was its duty to produce some other evidence to show that not more than 190 days' leave was at the credit of the respondent. If the leave account was not available, applications for leave made by the respondent and the orders passed thereon could be produced to show how much leave was at the credit of the respondent. Letters Exhs. R‑2, R‑3 and R‑4 were produced but they have no effect upon the case of the respondent. Exh. R‑2 is the order whereby L.P.R. was sanctioned but period is not given therein. Vide Exhs. R‑3 and R‑4 the respondent was informed that the leave sanctioned once could not be withdrawn. These letters too have no effect because on receipt of them the respondent availed of L.P.R. for 190 days. The dispute was for the remaining period of 132 days but there is no document on the record to show that leave for such period was not due. In the absence of leave, record and other cogent evidence, the learned lour Court was justified in allowing encashment for the remaining period of LPR. In the absence of the leave account the respondent was left with no other alternative but to produce secondary evidence, which he did by coming in the witness‑box himself. R.W. 1 no doubt stated in cross‑examination that leave record was prepared on 8‑8‑1982 but no such record was produced as none has been pointed out from the record.

3. In the circumstances discussed above, the grievance petition of the respondent was rightly accepted. The railway rule is that where a person applies for LPR but the same is not sanctioned, he is entitled to the encashment of 180 days only. Since the total period of L.P.R. was not allowed to the respondent without proving that L.P.R. was not due to him, the respondent was entitled to the encashment of the period of LPR which was not sanctioned to him.

4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./194/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.