Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑141 of 1976, heard on 13th April 1977.

‑‑ Gratuity‑Provident Scheme in existence since 1961‑Gratuity Scheme introduced by Settlement on 1‑11‑1968, i.e. after promulgation of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Settlement not affecting gratuity or exclu sion of its payment due to existence of Provident Fund Scheme Gratuity, in circumstances, held, could not be refused on plea of existence of Provident Fund Scheme‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12(6) read with S. 9.

Ahmed Sadiq for Appellant.

M. L. Shahani for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th April 1977.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering the payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 14,375 to the respondent.

2. The respondent was in the service of the appellant and was working as Marketing Research Officer. He resigned from service on 15th August 1975. At that time he was drawing Rs. 1,250 per month as pay. His resignation was accepted and all his dues except the gratuity were paid. He made a demand for the gratuity but it was refused. So he served a grievance notice dated 28th October 1975. A reply dated 13th October 1975 was sent to him rejecting his demand. Consequently, an application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance was made in the Labour Court on 5th December 1975.

3. The application was resisted. It was pleaded that the respondent was not a workman and therefore, the application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that in view of the introduction of Provident Fund Scheme the respondent was not entitled to gratuity.

4. The learned Labour Court, on the assessment of the evidence, rejected the contentions raised by the appellant and allowed the gratuity. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed. On 12th October, 1976 I started hearing the appeal and during the course of the arguments I found it necessary to record further evidence with regard to the Provident Fund Scheme introduced by the appellant. So on 23rd December 1976 the witness tendered by the respondent was examined. No further evidence was led by either party.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset urged before me that the respondent was not a workman and, therefore, the application filed under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance was not maintainable. However, during the course of the arguments he conceded that the respondent was a workman and, therefore, he dropped the objection. In view of this statement it is unnecessary to deal with this question.

6. The other plea which was taken on behalf of the appellant is that in view of Standing Order No. 12(6) gratuity was not payable as there was a Provident Fund Scheme introduced by the appellant. There is no force in this contention. The Provident Fund Scheme was introduced in the year 1961, whereas section 9 of the Standing Orders Ordinance saved any law, custom, usage, award or agreement immediately after the promul gation of the Ordinance. So the previous term of service was more favourable to the workman than that provided in the Standing Orders. The gratuity scheme was introduced by a settlement dated 1st November 1968. There is nothing in the settlement to either affect the gratuity scheme or exclude the payment of the gratuity to the employees in spite of the fact that the Provident Fund Scheme was already in existence and further more the settlement laid down that if at any future date the pension schemes was introduced the gratuity would be withdrawn. This clearly indicate that the gratuity scheme was not affected, although, the Provident Fund Scheme was already in force. Not only this, but it was admitted by the witness who was examined in this Court that the gratuity was being paid to all the workers on retirement in addition to the pension. Thus there is no reason why the respondent should have been denied the payment of gratuity.

7. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal 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.