| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2365 1989 SLD 2365 1989 PLC 709 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-166 of 1988, decided on 29th June, 1988.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. LHR-166 of 1988, decided on 29th June, 1988.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another
VS
MUHAMMAD SHAM
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.38(3)--Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. I, R. 707(5)--Pakistan Railways Gazette No. 12 dated 75-a>-1987, Item No. 41--Entitlement of employee to running allowance--Fifty-five per cent running allowance to form part of average pay in case of persons belonging to running staff--Retired person who elects not to avail of leave preparatory to retirement would be deemed to be on duty and entitled to get salary by way of encashment of L.P.R. to the extent of 180 days according to rules--Grievance petition of employee claiming that, besides his usual pay, he was entitled to fifty-five per cent running allowance towards encashment of L.P.R. to the extent of 180 days, was rightly accepted. Saifullah Khan for Appellants. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th June, 1988. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision dated 28-1-1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the respondent has been accepted and he has been directed to be paid his pay plus 55% running allowance for the period of 180 days by way of encashment of L.P.R. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited notification copy of which is Exh.R-1 and Rule 17(4) Leave Rules given in N.L.R. 1980 and has argued that only pay and not 55% running allowance is to be paid to the persons who do not avail of L.P.R. and want to get the L.P.R. encashed. The line of the argument of the learned counsel is that m the notification copy of which is Exh.R-1 and in Rule 17(4) the word `leave pay' is used and only the senior post allowance has been allowed to be paid during the leave. He argues that pay does not include wages, therefore, the appellant rightly did not allow 55% running allowance to the respondent and that the learned lower Court erred in allowing the grievance petition. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant to Fundamental Rule 9-[2003(21)(a)(iii)] of Establishment Code Part II appearing at page No. 50 and has argued that according to the said Rule only those allowances are…
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