Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. LHR-33 of 1983, decided on 7th April, 1984.

--Ss. 15 & 17-Deducted wages- Encashment of leave preparatory to retirement-Railway employee not applying for L. P. R. and subsequently claiming encashment for entire period of admissible L. P. R. of 365 days-Authority accepting claim-Labour Court in appeal observing that employee must have applied for L. P. R. himself if he wanted to avail of same and reducing amount payable to extent of 180 days wages only as admissible under rules in such circumstances-Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribu nal in revision-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3-a).

H. R. Haider for Appellant.

Irfan Qadir for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1984.

The revision captioned above arises from the order, dated 5th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the appeal of the respondents was partly accepted.

2. The petitioner was retired on 19th September, 1980. He did not apply for L. P. R. and thus could not avail of it. He brought an .applica tion for the recovery of deducted wages to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act which was accepted. This is true that the petitioner was not asked to apply for L. P. R. but it was not necessary. The petitioner had himself to apply for it if he wanted to avail of it. Under Gazette Notification, dated 5th October, 1978 in such cases full wages in lieu of 180 days are allowed. The learned lower appellate Court allowed the same. The order is just and proper. The petitioner was not entitled to the wages for the full period of L. P. R. and the Authority had wrongly allowed the same.

3. As a result, the revision being without force is dismissed.

A. S. Revision petition 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.