1984 PLP 1093 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE AND ANOTHER Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1093 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE AND ANOTHER Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1093 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1093 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1093 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE AND ANOTHER Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellants.
- Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th September, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 2044, cls. (a) & (b)‑Suspension period‑No charge‑sheet served‑Period of suspension after re‑instatement‑To be treated as duty with wages.
Judgment & Decree
R. 2044, cls. (a) & (b)‑Suspension period‑No charge‑sheet served‑Period of suspension after re‑instatement‑To be treated as duty with wages. Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellants. Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1983. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 10th November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the appellants were directed to pay to the respondent back benefits for the period he remained under suspension from 17th April, 1979 to 5th April, 1980.
2. Previously a petition under section 25‑A was brought by the respondent for the benefits of the same period of suspension and the appellants were directed to pay benefits according to the rules. The respondent moved an application to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, on the strength of that decision. The appellant produced letter Exh. P. 2 where upon the Authority refused to give relief on the ground no jurisdiction. The respondent, therefore; brought another grievance petition under section 25‑A from the decision of which this appeal arises. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the previous decision of Labour Court No. 2, Lahore dated 27th February, 1980 is res- judicata upon the present case. Vide Exh. P. 2 the disputed period was treated as S. U. Q. S. For this reason the respondent felt aggrieved again and brought another petition under section 25‑A. Since this kind of treatment had not been given to the respondent before he had brought the previous grievance petition, so Exh. P. 2 gave fresh cause of grievance and the previous decision dated 27th February, 1980 is not res judicata.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that clause (b) of rule 2044 authorises the Railways authorities to decide the entitlement of re‑instated persons to wages for the period they remained out of service and thus the appellant passed the impugned order correctly. This argument has no force. Clause (b) is not applicable as the respon dent is not alleged, to have been charge‑sheeted for any misconduct and punished. Clause (a) applies. The case of the respondent is on even better footing, because clause (a) says that the employees honorably acquitted are entitled to full wages. The respondent was never charge sheeted and tried. A criminal case was pending, in which he has been' acquitted. So, he is entitled to full wages for the suspension period and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court is correct.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. A. E. Appeal dismissed.