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. GT‑97 of 1984, decided on 8th December 1984.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 12(6)‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936). Ss. 15 a 17‑ Gratuity‑‑Workman after putting in service of more than 3 years in Government Transport Service recalled to Army for active service‑ Gratuity claimed for period, of service till resumption of duty after release from Army though not re‑instated‑‑Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allowing claim‑‑Labour Court in appeal refusing entire claim on grounds of absence of any proof that lien retained during service in Army‑‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held entitled to gratuity for period of actual service before recalled to Army 8 20 days wages per year of service‑‑Appellate Tribunal accepting revision, setting aside Appellate Order of : Labour Court and modifying order of Authority accordingly‑‑Revision‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a).
Petitioner in Person.
Shuja‑ud‑Din for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 1984.
The decision, dated 12‑3‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. The prayer is for the restoration of the order of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujrat, whereby the petitioner was allowed Rs.5,119.20 as gratuity for the period from 1974 to 1980.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent from 27‑6‑1962 to 18‑11‑1965 when he was recalled by the Army for active service. He resumed duty on 6‑6‑1974. His petition for re‑instatement was dismissed. He claimed gratuity from 27‑6‑1962 to 6‑6‑1974. The learned Authority accepted his claim but in appeal, it was refused on the ground that he failed to prove that his lien was retained with the respondent for the period he remained in the Army. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy that the services of the petitioner from 1962 to 1974 were continuous. But admittedly, the petitioner served under the respondent from 27‑6‑1962 to 18‑11‑1965 when‑he was recalled by the A Army. So he is entitled to the gratuity for the said period at 20 days' wages per year under Standing Order 12(6) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to say anything effective against this view.
3. As a result, the revision is partly accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower appellate Court, the order of the Authority is modified by allowing gratuity for the period from 27‑6‑1962 to 18‑11‑1965 at the rate of 20 days' wages per year.
A. E.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer