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.
1984 P L C 436
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN
Versus
SHAHID HUSSAIN NAQVI
Appeal No. MN‑618 of 1982, decided on 27th February, 1984.
----Para. 205‑Daily Allowance‑Continuous halt for more than ten days‑D. A. not admissible without general or individual exemption by competent authority‑No exemption granted‑Acceptance of claim of D. A. for more than ten days halt by Labour Court, in circumstances, not approved by Appellate Tribunal as there was no right guaranteed by law‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Syed Muhammad Naqi for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 21st February, 1984.
The decision, dated 30th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was allowed D. A. of Rs, 4,075 for the period as detailed below :‑
(1) 25‑10‑1978 to 15‑11-1978=22 days
(2) 1‑12‑1978 to 20‑12‑1978=20 days
(3) 23‑12‑1978 to 21‑1‑1979=30 days.
(4) 23‑1-1979 to 23‑4‑1979=91 days
Needless to say that the respondent could claim D. A. only according to rules. Para. 205 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Volume‑I says that in case of continuous halt for more than ten days, no D. A. can be claimed, unless the Railways Division, or the Financial Adviser (Communications) in respect of Accounts Staff, the General Manager or the Engineer‑in‑Chief of a Railway under construction grants general or individual exemptions. The respondent did not produce any such order of the competent authorities as mentioned in para. 205, granting him individual exemption or any general exemption. The halts exceeded ten days, so the respondent was not entitled to D. A. for the said days. If halt exceeds ten days, the place of stay becomes a temporary headquarter . The learned lower Court was, therefore, not justified in accepting the grievance petition. There was no right guaranteed by law.
2. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respon dent is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer