1988 PLP 585 (PLC)

‑‑‑Settlement‑‑Deemed to be prospective unless expressly given retrospective effect‑‑Settlement would normally affect eventualities happening after execution. Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representative for Appellant. Saifullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1986. This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 6‑1‑1985, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for allowing 55% running allowance to him.

2. The appellant was a fireman and on account of vision failure he was posted as junior shed man on 3‑3‑1967. His pay was fixed without including 55$ running allowance that he was getting as fireman. He felt satisfied and did not claim the inclusion of the same. He was promoted as senior shed man on 21‑6‑1981 fixing his pay at Rs.685. The appellant claims that as he belonged to the running staff as fireman, he was entitled to 55$ running allowance as senior shed man. In his statement he deposed that as junior shed man he was not given 55$ running allowance as at that time there was no settlement existing. It means that the settlement was arrived at between the management and the C.B.A. after the appellant was absorbed as junior shed man, a post not belonging to running staff. No copy of the settlement is on the record. However, it is referred to in 1981 PLC

389. No details are given and this is thus, not known whether any retrospective effect was given to the settlement and if so, from what date. Every law and agreement is to be deemed to be prospective unless expressly retrospective effect has been given to it. The Settlement, therefore, affects eventualities that happened after its execution and not before it. The appellant ceased to remain an employee belonging to the running staff as soon as he accepted the post of junior shed man which belongs to non‑running staff. At the time he was promoted to the post of senior shed man, no doubt, the settlement had come into existence, but since he had already been absorbed in the non‑running staff, he cannot claim 55$ running allowance which is meant for the employees of the running staff. By being promoted as Senior shed man the appellant was not absorbed in the non‑running staff. He had already become the member of non‑running staff by being posted as junior shed man. So, he cannot claim 55$ running allowance over the pay of senior shed man. No question of limitation arises; rather the appellant cannot take benefit of the settlement. Even if the settlement had come into being when still the appellant was junior shed man, he could not have successfully claimed its benefits, because before that he had been taken in the non‑running staff due to his vision failure. The learned lower Court has wrongly dismissed the grievance petition as time‑barred. It was liable to be dismissed for want of any right guaranteed by the Settlement referred to above. He has thus, no case.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed. A.E./88/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.