Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 485 of 1982, heard on 12th May, 1982.
‑‑ Art. 9‑Writ jurisdiction‑Findings of fact‑Respondent claiming encashment of leave preparatory to retirement on grounds that he had not been given notice by petitioner (employer) about date of his superannuation ‑Claim re jected by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1937 but on appeal before Labour Court such claim accepted after re‑appraisal of evidence and finding that no notice as required to have been given had been issued by petitioner to respondent‑Petitioner further raising contention before High Court that primarily it was for respondent to avail of benefit of L. P. R. and that question of encashment of refused leave under rules could have arisen only, t when leave was refused‑No such plea raised either before Authority or Labour Court‑Findings of fact by Labour Court, in circum stances, held, not open to interference in exercise of writ jurisdic tion‑Petitioner, further held, estopped by his conduct to raise legal issues not taken up before Courts below‑Writ petition dismissed Encashment of Leave Preparatory to retirement‑Claim for Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15 (2).
Muhammad Ismail Bhatti and Syed Muhammad Naqi for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 12th May, 1981.
This writ petition calls in question the validity of the order dated 30th June, 1981, of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition may be briefly stated. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act (IV) of 1936 (hereinafter called the Act), claiming therein 12 months wages amounting to Rs.4,000 with Rs.10 as compensation for the reason that he was retired from service an attain ing the age of 60 years with effect from 9th January, 1980, without giving him a notice to avail the full benefit of leave preparatory to retirement. The Authority under the ‑ Act, by order dated I 5th February, 1981 dis missed the application on the ground that respondent No. 1 was duly informed about his date of retirement. On appeal, the Labour Court reversed the finding on reappraisal of the evidence by order dated 30th June, 1981, with the direction to the petitioner to pay to respondent No. 1 his pay for 180 days in lieu of the refusal of leave preparatory to retire ment as contemplated by Pakistan Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 5th of October, 1978.
3. Mr, Ismail Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. I was verbally informed of his date of retirement and, therefore, it was incorrectly observed by the Appellate Authority that no intimation was given to the petitioner, inasmuch as, intimation relating to the retirement of respondent No. I and all others who attainted the age of 60‑ years in Lahore Division, was duly brought to the notice; of all concerned including respondent No. 1 vide notice dated 30th March, 1977 (Annexure C). Is it finally contended that it was duty of respondent No. 1 to avail L. P. R. and no corresponding statutory duty is cast upon the petitioner to intimate to their employees as to the date of their retirement and that in any case, only when the leave is refused, the question of making encashment of refused leave under the relevant Rules would arise. This point was admittedly not raised by the petitioner either before the Authority or before the Labour Court,
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The perusal of notice dated 30th March, 1977 (Annexure C) would show that the petitioner was required to inform all the employees who were due to retire on comple tion of 60 years to apply for L. P. R. well in time for sanction if so desired. In the instant case, the Labour Court after re‑appraisal of evidence gave a finding of fact that no such intimation was given to res pondent No. 1. This finding is not open to interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is also estopped by his con A duct to raise the legal issues which he never took up before the Court below. The impugned order is based on cogent reasons and does not suffer from any illegality. This order shall, however, confine to the facts of the present case alone.
In‑view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer