Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 831 1997 SLD 831 1997 PLC 506
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-26 of 1996, decision dated: 11-08-1996.
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 GENERAL Manager/Personnel, Lahore and another

VS

S. IRSHAD HUSSAIN

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute Promotion with retrospective effectReemploymentPrivilege of promotion could not be claimed as of right on basis of seniority alone­Person could not be promoted on his reemployment in service nor could he be promoted with retrospective effect when he had actually not worked especially due to his premature retirement for which he himself asked for. Latif Saghar for Appellants. Gohar Iqbal for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th August, 1996. DECISION Respondent Irshad Hussain was a senior Chargeman in the Railways. Due to certain grievances he got frustrated and asked for L.P.R. and early retirement from service. He was, therefore, prematurely retired by the appellant Railway. The respondent then realised this mistake and filed petition against his premature retirement as ordered by the Railway. The matter went up to Supreme Court. Meanwhile the respondent had received his gratuity and pensionary benefits as a consequence of his retirement. The Supreme Court in their order, dated 20th November, 1991 held that the respondent be treated as being in service up to 251987 and then to be on L.P.R. from 351987 to 251988 proceeding his retirement from 351988. He should thereafter, be treated as reemployed from 441989 to 3041990 and paid for that period according to Reemployment Rules. 2. Being dissatisfied with the consequential order of the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways dated 29111992 the respondent filed a petition before the Labour Court No. V, Karachi. In this order the premature retirement orders passed by the Railway were cancelled and the respondent was allowed to rejoin his service. The period of his L.P.R. was converted into leave due and the period from 441989 to 2491990 was to be considered as duty. The grievance of the respondent in his petition before the Labour Court was that since his juniors had…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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