1989 PLP 172 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus AHMED KHAN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 172 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus AHMED KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 172 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 172 (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: 1989 PLP 172 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus AHMED KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saifullah Khan for Appellant.
- S.M. Nazim for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑ ‑‑‑ Leave preparatory to retirement‑‑Encashment of‑‑Entitlement to‑‑Railway employee‑‑Rules not providing any fixed period for option‑‑Employee claiming encashment in lieu of L.P.R. while still in service‑‑Claim of employee, held, amounted to exercise of option entitling him to benefit of encashment.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Leave preparatory to retirement‑‑Encashment of‑‑Entitlement to‑‑Railway employee‑‑Rules not providing any fixed period for option‑‑Employee claiming encashment in lieu of L.P.R. while still in service‑‑Claim of employee, held, amounted to exercise of option entitling him to benefit of encashment. Saifullah Khan for Appellant. S.M. Nazim for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th September, 1987. The appeal captioned above challenged the correctness of the decision dated 14‑5‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the recovery of six months' salary in lieu of LPR was accepted.
2. The petition of the respondent was opposed by the appellant on the plea that option had not been given to the Rules of 1980. No doubt, by means of Gazette Notification it was provided that option may be taken from the persons who were governed by the State Rules of 1980 but no period is fixed upto which the employees were entitled to give the option. Since the respondent claimed encashment of leave in lieu of LPR while he was still in service it means that he wanted the benefits of the Leave Rules of 1980 and thus amounts to an option. No proforma is given for giving an option, therefore, any writing which shows that the employee claims the benefit of Rules may amount to an option in the said Rules. In cases where period for giving are option is fixed, the employees are bound to give the option within the said period. The word "immediate" does not fix a reasonable time.
3. It has been argued that the petition was time‑barred inasmuch as the claim of the respondent was rejected and intimation was sent, copy of which is Exh. R‑
2. R‑2 is the copy of the letter no doubt, but it has not been shown that it was delivered personally or it was served by post inasmuch as neither any personal receipt nor postal A.D. has been produced.
4. In these circumstances discussed above, the learned lower Court was justified in accepting the claim of the respondent. The appeal being without any substance is dismissed. A.E./416/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.