Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute-- ---Settlement--Deemed to be prospective unless expressly given retrospective effect--Settlement would normally affect eventualities happening after execution. Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representative for Appellant. Saifullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1986. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 6-1-1985, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for allowing 55% running allowance to him. 2. The appellant was a fireman and on account of vision failure he was posted as junior shed man on 3-3-1967. His pay was fixed without including 55$ running allowance that he was getting as fireman. He felt satisfied and did not claim the inclusion of the same. He was promoted as senior shed man on 21-6-1981 fixing his pay at Rs.685. The appellant claims that as he belonged to the running staff as fireman, he was entitled to 55$ running allowance as senior shed man. In his statement he deposed that as junior shed man he was not given 55$ running allowance as at that time there was no settlement existing. It means that the settlement was arrived at between the management and the C.B.A. after the appellant was absorbed as junior shed man, a post not belonging to running staff. No copy of the settlement is on the record. However, it is referred to in 1981 PLC 389. No details are given and this is thus, not known whether any retrospective effect was given to the settlement and if so, from what date. Every law and agreement is to be deemed to be prospective unless expressly retrospective effect has been given to it. The Settlement,…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492