1996 PLP 257 (PLC)
SUPERINTENDENT, TELEGRAPH WORKSHOP, KOTRI Versus NIHAL AHMED (TICKET NO. 221) and 4 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP 257 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SUPERINTENDENT, TELEGRAPH WORKSHOP, KOTRI Versus NIHAL AHMED (TICKET NO. 221) and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 257 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 257 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 257 (PLC) (SUPERINTENDENT, TELEGRAPH WORKSHOP, KOTRI Versus NIHAL AHMED (TICKET NO. 221) and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Hussain for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A, 37 & 38
Payment of reward money-.--Grievance petition-- Maintainability
Employees having not been found eligible for payment of reward money declared to be paid to workers for relevant year, they filed grievance petition
Labour Court accepting their grievance petition found them eligible to get reward money, despite employees were not recommended by Controlling Officer to get same as they had not completed year for which reward was declared--Payment of reward money could not be considered to be industrial dispute within meaning of S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Tribunal also had no jurisdiction to pass orders as subject-matter of appeal was outside scope of industrial dispute--Employees could riot claim payment of reward money as of right. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Hamid Hussain for Appellant. Respondent No. 1 in person. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1995. The respondents are telegraph workers who filed their grievance petitions before the Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad for non‑payment of reward money. The learned Labour Court allowed their grievance petitions and directed the Telegraph Workshop, Kotri to make payment of reward money to them: Against this order, the Superintendent, Telegraph Workshop, Kotri has filed these appeals.
2. The facts in brief are that the Telegraph Workshop, Kotri declared reward of Rs.2,500 per worker for the year 1993‑94 for its employees by letter dated 21‑2‑1994. The eligible workers got the reward, excepting seven workers. They filed their grievance peril ions before the Labour Court. Petitions of five workers were allowed while the petitions of remaining two workers were disallowed. The Telegraph Superintendent preferred appeals against the decision of the Labour Court for awarding the amount to five workers, on the ground that they had already retired, before the orders passed for reward, and before the end of the year of reward.
3. Nihal Ahmed retired on 29‑11‑1993, Muhammad Jamil retired on 17‑1‑1994, Abdul Qadeer retired on 20‑8‑1993, Qutubuddin retired on 21‑8‑1993 and N7ehmood Ali retired on 30‑7-1993. These five persons were not recommended by the Controlling Officer as they had not completed the year 1993‑
94. These workers had worked for one or two months or at the most for six and half months, but no one had completed the whole year and the reward money was being paid ex gratia only to such workers who were recommended to receive the same. This money could not be claimed as of right.
4. Payment of reward money cannot be considered to be an industrial in dispute within the meaning of section 25 A of the I.R.O. The money is reported to have been paid to these retired workers. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass orders as the subject‑matter of appeal is outside the scope of industrial dispute under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The learned counsel for the Telegraph Mr. Hamid Hussain, however, undertakes that the amount already paid to the workers who have retired, will be recovered from their pension, even though the Labour Court wrongly exercised jurisdiction in awarding the amount. H.B.T./15/Lb.S Order accordingly.