1993 PLP 929 (PLC)
and another Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 929 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | and another Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 929 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 929 (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: 1993 PLP 929 (PLC) (and another Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Qadir for Appellant.
- Zia Ullah Khawaja for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Advance increments‑‑‑Improvement of qualifications‑‑‑Pakistan Railways Incentive Scheme‑‑‑No bar for Class III employees improving qualification by passing BA. Examination in IIIrd Division‑‑‑Directive amending such scheme‑‑‑Not retrospective‑‑‑Class III employee passing BA. Examination in IIIrd Division prior to amendment, held, was entitled to the benefit.
Judgment & Decree
Irfan Qadir for Appellant. Zia Ullah Khawaja for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th January, 1986. The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 30‑4‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad accepting the grievance petitions of the respondents for four advance increments under the incentive scheme. As the points involved in the two appeals are identical, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondents are Class‑III employees. They passed BA examination in III division. They claimed four advance increments but failed and then brought grievance petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to Exh.R‑2, Class‑III employees are entitled to four advance increments if they get minimum qualification meant for Class‑II service and not that they should pass B.A. examination. He also says that since no direct appointment is made in Class‑II service, no qualification is prescribed for the said class. The arguments are without any basis. No document has been pointed out to show that no qualification is fixed for Class‑II service and that the vacancies in the said class of service arc not filled in by direct appointment. Even if it is accepted that no direct appointment can be made in Class‑II service and that all vacancies are filled in by promotion, this is not acceptable that no educational qualification is prescribed for Class‑II service. Since no rule has been shown, the argument is rejected; Previous to the letter Exh. R‑2, there was no directions to disallow advance increments to Class‑III employees if they improved qualification in III Division. Exh. R‑2 clarification has no binding force as interpretations can be made by Courts and none else. Exh. R. 2 amounts only to instruction but as it is not in conformity with the incentive scheme introduced earlier to it, it has no force. Even if it be taken as an amendment, it not having been given. retrospective effect, applies only after it was issued and not to the employees who improved their qualification prior to it. Exh. R‑2 was issued in 1981, whereas Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqi passed B.A. examination in 1963 as is clear from Exh. P‑1 and Muhammad Yaqoob improved his qualification in 1970 vide certificate exhibited in his case as Exh.P‑
1. So, both the respondents were entitled to four advance increments and the learned lower Court has rightly accepted their grievance petitions.
3. As a result, the appeals fail and are consequently dismissed. A.E./18/Lb.P Appeal dismissed