Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑280 of 1978, decided on 6th December 1976.

‑‑Gratuity --‑ Payable only after retirement‑Claim, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court at premature stage‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

‑‑ Ss 36 &. 37 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11 Adjudication of industrial dispute‑Res judicata‑Principle of‑Applied in industrial dispute.

Mahmood Ghani for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering the issuance of Identification Card to the respondent from the date of his first appointment as prayed by him.

2. The respondent was in the service of the appellant since 1954. He was denied certain benefits and, therefore, he made an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. to the Junior Labour Court. His application was granted. Against that order an appeal was filed in the Labour Court and the order was modified to the extent that since the respondent, for the first time, made his grievance by a letter dated 1st February, 1973, he would be entitled to the benefits of bonus and other kinds of leaves from that date only. This order was passed on 26th January, 1974.

3. Subsequently, an Identity Card was issued in which the employ ment of the respondent was shown to be from Ist February, 1973. The respondent, however, claimed that the date of his employment should have been shown from 1st January, 1954. Consequently, he approached the Labour Court by making an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. after serving the grievance notice. He also claimed gratuity from 1954 to 1974.

4. The application was resifted and it was pleaded that the respondent vas in the employment of the contractors and he was no: entitled to any benefit as already held and his date of appointment could only be the date when the previous order of the Junior Labour Court was passed.

5. The Labour Court rejected the claim for gratuity as this can be granted alter requirement, but be allowed the prayer of the respondent that the date of appointment be shown in the identity Card as Ist January, 1954 when he was first appointed. Aggrieved by the last direction, the present appeal was fled.

6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I find no force in the appeal which has been filed. There can be do manner of dispute that the respondent was in the employment of the appellant since Ist January, 1954, and therefore, it was necessary that the date of appointment of the respondent should have shown to be the same as date when he was actually appointed and not the date when the previous order was passed by tie Junior Labour Court. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondent was in the employment of the contractors has no force as it was rejected in the previous proceedings which operate as res judicata. The plea cannot be allowed to be re‑agitated.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, however expressed an apprehension that by showing the original data of service, the respondent would claim various benefits from 1st January, 1954. This apprehension has also no basis as in the previous proceedings it was decided teat tire respondent was entitled to the benefits of bonus and other kinds of leaves since 1^stFebruary, 1973. Apparently, these benefits prior to 1st February, 1973 cannot be claimed. So far other benefits are concerned, there may be some genuine apprehension and to allay the apprehension the appellants shall be at liberty to raise the plea of limitation and other legal as well as factual pleas which may be open to them.

8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.