2011 PLP 1924 (SCMR)
SHAHNAZ PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus PTCL through President and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1924 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHNAZ PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus PTCL through President and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1924 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1924 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1924 (SCMR) (SHAHNAZ PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus PTCL through President and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 2008.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 30-5-2008 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in L.A. No. 128 of 2008).
Ss. 46 & 47(3)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(3)
Option for voluntary separation scheme
Petitioner exercised her option for voluntary separation scheme introduced by the management which was accepted by the management
Subsequently petitioner took the plea that a fraud had been played upon her otherwise she would not have exercised her option
Grievance petition by the petitioner was dismissed by the Labour Court and appeal by the petitioner having also been dismissed
Question whether the exercise of option by the petitioner was voluntary or otherwise, could not be decided by the Supreme Court being purely a question of fact
Controversy had already been set at rest by the Labour Court as well as the High Court
No question of law of public importance was involved in the case; it was too late to entertain and adjudicate upon the plea taken by the petitioner without there being material to substantiate the same
Petition for leave to appeal being meritless was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner, an employee of PTCL, exercised her option for the voluntary separation scheme (VSS), introduced by the management which was accepted by order dated 28-1-2008. Later, the petitioner took the plea that a fraud had been played upon her otherwise she would not have exercised her option. She, therefore, filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.1,. Lahore, which was dismissed by order dated 7-5-2008. Her labour Appeal No.128 of 2008 was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner had exercised her option to avail the VSS retirement scheme only under a fear and threat that her services would be terminated. In much a situation she would have been left high and dry without payment of any benefits.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. The question whether the exercise of option by the petitioner was voluntary or otherwise cannot be decided by this Court being purely a question of fact. The controversy had already been set at rest by the Labour Court as well as the High Court. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case. It is too late before us to entertain and adjudicate upon the plea taken by the petitioner without there being any material to substantiate the same.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./S-3/SC Leave to appeal refused.