1990 PLP 498 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN
| Citation | 1990 PLP 498 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 498 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 498 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1990 PLP 498 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch.Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant.
- S.M.Nazim for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Limitation, question of‑‑‑Plea that grievance notice or grievance petition was time‑barred not raised in written statement‑‑‑Such pleas, held, could not be agitated at any later stage before Labour Court much less at appellate stage before Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 20‑6‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby six months encashment of leave in lieu of LPR has been allowed to the respondent. My attention has been invited to a notification whereby it was provided that opportunity of giving option to the Rules of 1980 be given to the employees. It has been argued that since there was a notification, the presumption is that the respondent knew that he was required to give option and since he did not opt to the Rules of 1980 he could not claim its benefits. This is true that the learned lower Court observed that it was not proved that option was invited from the respondent but the difficulty in the way of the appellant is that no period for giving option was fixed, therefore, the respondent could give option at any time. Since he claimed the benefits of the Rules of 1980 before he was actually retired, the claim amounts to opting the Rules. No proforma for giving option is fixed, therefore, any writing which shows that the employee wishes to take benefit of a Rule amounts to giving option in the Rules.
2. The other argument of the learned counsel is that the grievance notice was time‑barred inasmuch as the respondent himself stated in the grievance petition that intimation rejecting his claim was dated 18‑10‑1984. In the written statement no objection was raised that the grievance notice or the grievance petition was time‑barred, therefore, such a point could not be agitated at any later stage before the learned lower Court and much less before this Court at theappellate stage. If such an objection had been raised, the respondent might have proved that the intimation was not received or that it was received on a date from which the grievance notice was within time. Moreover, the petition was brought under section 34 wherein there is no provision of giving of a grievance notice nor any limitation is fixed.
3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./415/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.