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.
Appeal No. LHR‑592 of 1982, decided on 4th August, 1983.
‑‑ Vested right‑Cannot be taken away retrospectively‑ Railway employees Truck Drivers granted piece‑rated profit by competent authority without any distinction that same not admissible to those working outside workshops‑Clarification made subsequently that piece‑rated profit had wrongly been paid td those working outside workshops and amount already paid made liable to deduction Letter allowing piece‑rated profit being without any distinction and qualification, in circumstances, held, guaranteed a right which could not be taken away by clarification retrospectively‑Labour Appellate Tribunal accepting appeal holding that appellants (Drivers) would be entitled to piece‑rated profit for period prior to issuance of clari fication amending original order‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Asmat Kamal for Appellants.
Muhammad Naqvi Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st August, 1983.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 10th August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for piece‑rated profit was dismissed.
2. Vide letter Exh. P‑1 piece‑rated profit was allowed to lister truck drivers and motor truck drivers. Vide letter Exh. R‑1 clarification was made to the effect that Exh. P‑1 had been wrongly interpreted and piece- rated profit was intended to be allowed only to the lister truck drivers as they were connected with the production. The profit already paid held liable to be deducted. In 1978 the grievance petition was lodged which was dismissed on the sole ground that the grievance notice had been issued by the lawyer. The appellant after service of fresh legal notice under sec tion 25‑A brought the grievance petition from the dismissal of which the instant appeal arises. .
3. Learned lower Court has held that since the appellants have no connection with the production and their duty was outside the workshop, they were not entitled to the piece‑rated profit. It has also been said by lower Court that the authority who issued Exh. P‑1 had jurisdiction to clarify it. So far as this argument is concerned that piece‑rated profit was meant to be allowed to the workers working inside the workshop, there is nothing in Exh. P‑.1‑ It is without any distinction and. Qualification to allow piece‑rated profit to lister truck drivers and motor truck drivers] Exh. P‑1 guaranteed a right which cannot be taken away by making a clarification retrospectively. Exh. P‑1 could, no doubt, be amended or even discontinued for the future but no change could be introduced in it retrospectively, to deprive a category of workers of a vested right. This is not mentioned in Exh. P‑1 that piece‑rated profit would be available only to those drivers who were working inside the workshop. The authority who issued Exh. P‑1 is expected to know that motor truck drivers do not work inside the workshop, but outside it, but in spite of it by Exh. P‑1 the said motor truck drivers were expressly allowed piece‑rated profit alongwith lister truck drivers. If the intention of the author of Exh. P‑I A had been that only the drivers working inside the workshop may get benefits by Exh. P‑1, it would have omitted to mention motor truck drivers. Even if it be assumed that the intention was to give benefit of Exh. P‑1 to lister truck drivers only, then by mistake motor truck drivers were mentioned in Exh. P‑1. But this mistake could be legally rectified by amending Exh. P‑1 prospectively and not by the so‑called clarification. Exh. P‑1 was quite clear in its term and thus did not require any clarification. So, I am of the view that Exh. P‑1 did not legally take away a vested right and amended Exh. P‑1 only for the future, with the result that the appellants would not be entitled to take benefit of Exh. P‑1 after the issuance of Exh. P‑1 but they are entitled to piece‑rated profit for the period prior to the issuance of Exh. P‑I.
4. As a result of what has been observed above, I partly accept the appeal and direct respondents to give benefit of Exh. P‑1 to the appellants for the period before Exh. P‑1 was issued.
A. E. Appeal partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer