Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Petition No. JG‑249 of 1985, decided on 24th December, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑ Entitlement of increment for purposes of fixation of pay on promotion of Railway employee‑‑Matter, held, not within jurisdiction of Authority‑ Claim i8 based upon any right guaranteed by law, settlement or award could be agitated before Labour Court‑‑Denial of right of increment would not be a case of deduction simplicitor.
1985 P L C 29 and 1985 P L C 31 rel.
Syed Intisar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985.
The order, dated 12‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan is reported to be wrong.
2. The learned lower appellate Court has following the two rulings of this tribunal reported in 1985 P L C 29 and 1985 P L C 31 held that the Authority had no jurisdiction. The petitioner was suspended as a case had been brought against him. He on account of involvement in the case was not promoted to NPS‑11 in 1978. The case was decided in his favour in 1980, so he was allowed the said scale with effect from 1‑12‑1978 fixing his pay at Rs.606. He was allowed subsequent yearly increments. His grievance is that he was entitled to a promotion increment on 1‑12‑1978 as he was allowed NPS‑11 with effect from May, 1978. He contended that on account of not allowing one increment on 1‑12‑1978 he suffered a total loss of Rs.1,233 which amounted to deduction, so he moved the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The petition was allowed but was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court in appeal on the ground as mentioned above that the Authority had no jurisdiction. The question whether the petitioner was or was not entitled to one increment on 1‑12‑1978 could not be decided by the Authority. If there was any right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award, the petitioner could go to the Labour Court and not to the Authority. It was not a case of deduction simplicitor. Right of increment was denied to the petitioner by the respondent.
3. So far as merits are concerned, the petitioner may have a prima facie case he was vide Exh. P.3 getting Rs.622 when he was promoted as Commercial Supervisor but his pay was fixed at Rs.578 with effect from 18‑3‑1978. By promotion he had to get higher pay than what he was getting on the previous post and not less than that.
4. As a result, the revision is dismissed.
A. E.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer