1988 PLP 689 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus RABIA BIBI
| Citation | 1988 PLP 689 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus RABIA BIBI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 689 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 689 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 689 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus RABIA BIBI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Noor Hussain for Petitioner.
- Khalid Mahmood Butt for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Vol. I‑‑ ‑‑‑R.5‑‑Gratuity‑‑Application to be given within one month of retirement‑‑Requirement of one month, held, was not mandatory‑‑Claim of widow of Railway Servant who died during LPR period resisted on plea that since application for gratuity was not given by deceased within one month of retirement therefore he was not entitled to same‑ Plea rejected‑‑Held, provision not being mandatory petition could be given even beyond one month. (b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15(2)‑‑Gratuity‑‑Claim for‑‑Held: gratuity claim was within jurisdiction of Authority. Onto of hearing: 25th January, 1988.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.15(2)‑‑Gratuity‑‑Claim for‑‑Held: gratuity claim was within jurisdiction of Authority. Ch. Noor Hussain for Petitioner. Khalid Mahmood Butt for Respondent. Onto of hearing: 25th January, 1988. This is a revision reporting that the decision dated 18‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.‑7, Gujranwala whereby the order of the Authority dated 17‑11‑1986 was confirmed is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts are that Muhammad Ashraf was Ex. Interlocking Misty, Pakistan Railways, Wazirabad and was retired from service and died during the period of L.P.R. His widow the respondent claimed gratuity to the tune of, Rs.40,
000. The petition was opposed by the petitioner and the jurisdiction of the Authority was inter‑alia attacked. The learned Authority decided that it had jurisdiction and accepted the claim to the extent of Rs.23,
360. The learned lower Court has upheld the order of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the application for gratuity was not given by the deceased within one month of the retirement, therefore, he was not entitled to the same. He has cited Rule 5 of the Personnel Manual Vol‑I. I do not find any force in the argument. The word "may" used and not 'shall' in the Rule where it says that the application be given within one month. The provision not being mandatory the petition could be given even beyond one month. Next point argued by the learned counsel is that the Payment of Wages Act is not applicable where the claim is of gratuity. This argument too has no force. According to the amended section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for delay in payment of gratuity application under the said section can be made and the Authority has jurisdiction. Amended section 15(2) reads as under:‑ "Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person or any payment of wages (or payment of dues relating to provident fund or gratuity payable under any law) has been delayed such person himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf or any Inspector under this Act or any other person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under subsection (1) may apply to such authority for direction under subsection (3). It is thus, clear that by adding the words "or non‑payment of dues relating to provident fund or gratutity payable under any law", the Authority was invested with the powers to decide petitions in which the payment of gratuity had been delayed. So the learned lowers Court below rightly held that the Authority has jurisdiction.
4. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.