Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1504 1993 SLD 1504 1993 PLC 782
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Revision Application No. KAR-491 of 1991, decided on 16th May 1993.
AGHA ALI HYDER, 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

SAIN KHAN

VS

and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute--- ----Gratuity---Entitlement to---Settlement was arrived at between the parties according to which employees were granted gratuity at the rate of 37 days per year, but Court despite having found that employee was entitled to such gratuity, struck it down without giving any sound reason---Settlement arrived at between the parties for grant of gratuity neither being against public policy nor tainted with illegality, order striking down gratuity duly granted to employee, could not sustain. Gohar Iqbal for Petitioner. Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Respondent No. 3. Date of hearing: 9th May 1993. DECISION The applicant was working as a Driver with the respondent No.3 and having attained the age of superannuation, he was retired from service in 1986. He had preferred certain claims in the sum of Rs.56, 977.13 with the Employers. Out of this amount he was given Rs.18, 351.26. He had, therefore, filed a claim under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before 'the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the sum of Rs.38, 625.87 which was .duly contested. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act disallowed the last two items namely claims in regard to festival holidays and the difference of gratuity. The gratuity in item No. 1 was allowed in the sum of Rs.3, 412.14 only. The rest of the items were allowed in full. 2. Aggrieved by this order the respondent No. 3 had taken an appeal before the Labour Court. The learned Presiding Officer disallowed the gratuity, the claims in regard to Notice Pay and Annual Leave but affirmed the claim only in regard to the unavailed leave to the extent of Rs.2, 938. This has resulted in the present Revision Application. 3. In a Revision Application the canvass is very limited as only the correctness, legality or propriety of an order may be examined. Under the circumstances the only misapprehension in the impugned order to my mind pertains to the gratuity. 4. Admittedly there was a settlement arrived…
🔒
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