1994 PLP 464 (PLC)
ABDUL HALEEM Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR
| Citation | 1994 PLP 464 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL HALEEM Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 464 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 464 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 464 (PLC) (ABDUL HALEEM Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.T. Mehmood for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Running allowance‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Employee who was retired after reaching age of superannuation was paid six months' encashment on L.P.R. (Leave prior to retirement) but running allowance which according to employee was part and parcel of pay was denied to him‑‑‑Running allowance which was being paid earlier, came to be modified later on and was withdrawn‑‑‑Withdrawal of running allowance, could not be challenged as it did not involve infringement of any right guaranteed under law, award or settlement. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
A.T. Mehmood for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1994. This appeal, whereby the petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 came to be dismissed, has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner was employed as a Driver in Pakistan Railways at Loco Shed, Rohri and was retired after reaching the age of superannuation with effect from 22‑6‑1989. He was paid six months' encashment on LPR but without 55% running allowance which was stated to be part and parcel of the pay, and was being paid to the retiring employees earlier.
3. After serving the grievance notice the petition was filed before the Labour Court with the aforesaid result.
4. The Running allowance was being paid earlier under Rules 17 and 18 of Revised Leave Rules, 1980. The same came to be modified under Rule 17(4) which provides that for the purpose of lump sum payment in lieu of L.P.R., only the Senior Post Allowance was to be included in the Leave Pay and no other allowance.
5. The withdrawal of this allowance cannot be challenged as it does not involve the infringement of any right guaranteed under law, award or settlement.
6. Under the circumstances the order is not open to any interference. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2292/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.