Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑73 of 1983, decided on 4^th June, 1984.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)

‑‑‑S.1(4) & S.0.12(6)‑‑Central Bank of India taken over by Custodian' of Enemy Property and having statutory rules governing terms and conditions of service of its employees‑‑Not within ambit of Ordinance‑ Gratuity to its employees payable in accordance with its own rules and not under S.0.12(6).

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellants.

Asad Hussain Zaidi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 29th May, 1984.

The decision dated 16‑1‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the joint grievance petition of the appellants was partly accepted to the extent of issuing direction in favour of Zawar Hussain for payment of additional gratuity at the rate of half month's pay for one completed year but the petition so far as it related to the remaining appellants was dismissed.

2. The respondent had allowed gratuity to the appellants equal to half month's pay for every completed year of service on their retirement according to the Central Bank of India Rules. The appellants claim gratuity at 30 days pay for every completed year of service. It has been argued that according to the settlement Exh. P.4, the pay and allowances were to be allowed to the Central Bank of India employees according to the rates at which they were being paid to the employees of scheduled banks. Firstly, according to the argument, the settlement referred to above, makes provisions for pay and allowances and not for gratuity and secondly in Exh. P.4, it is not provided at what rates gratuity will be allowed. It is mentioned that compromise had been effected and the C.B.A. withdrew the demands. What the respondent had offered is not mentioned in the said document. In appeal a photostat of the award given by Labour Court No.1 and Annexure 'E' referred to in the said award have been produced but since they are not certified copies, no reliance can be safely placed upon them. Apart from it, according to Annexure 'E' referred to above, gratuity can be allowed only to those whose service is five years or more but less than ten years because for the employees whose service is ten years or more there is a provision of pension. So, these documents do not support the claim of the appellants.

3. It has also been argued that according to Standing Order 12(6) of Standing Orders Ordinance; 1968; gratuity at the rate of 20 days per year is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to convince that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to the Central Bank of India. The custodian of enemy property took all evacuee property and interests under the Evacuee Property Act and thus the Central Bank of India can be said to be existing under the authority of the Central Government. It has its own rules framed under the Central Bank of India Act. It is thus doubtful if Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies. According to the Central Bank of India Rules, the case has been rightly decided by the learned lower Court. As only Zawar Hussain had service exceeding thirty years, he was rightly allowed additional gratuity equal to half month's pay for one more completed year and as the remaining two appellants have less than thirty years' service, they were, according to the rules, correctly allowed gratuity at half month's pay for every completed year. No ground to interfere with the impugned decision of the learned lower Court.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.