| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 818 1997 SLD 818 1997 PLC 468 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-468 of 1996, decision dated: 20-10-1996.
MUSHTAQ ALI QAZI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. HYD-468 of 1996, decision dated: 20-10-1996.
MUSHTAQ ALI QAZI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Divisional Superintendent, Karachi
VS
NAZIR AHMED KHAN
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)S. 25AWorkmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S. 2(n)(i) & Sched.Grievance petitionMaintainabilityApplicant who was Yard Master working in Office at Railway Station concerned, was a Railway servant and since he was drawing more than Rs.3,000 per month, would come within definition of "civil servant" and not ' workman'Applicant, thus could seek redress of his grievance in respect of his terms and conditions of service by filing his appeal before Service TribunalGrievance petition filed by applicant before Labour Court, was not maintainable in circumstances. M. Latif Saghar for Appellants. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1996. DECISION This appeal by Pakistan Railways arises from the order of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of the respondent for encashment of six months wages on retirement as un-availed L.P.R. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent retired as Yard Master, Kotri Railway Station on 2121991 after service of about 30 years. He applied for encashment of six months L.P.R. on 661991 and issued reminder on 881991 but his claim was rejected. He served the Railway with a grievance notice and then filed his grievance application. 3. It is the case of the Railways that the claim of the respondent for encashment of L.P.R. was rejected because the length of service qualifying for encashment was subsequently extended to 31 years and the respondent was not entitled to this benefit. 4. The main question in this case is whether the respondent as Yard Master drawing more than Rs.3,000 per month was a Railway servant coming within the definition of service of the Federation or was a worker under the Railways Act. The contention of the appellant Railway is that the respondent was a civil servant and if he was aggrieved he should have moved the…
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