| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2620 2010 SLD 2620 2010 SCMR 42 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos.1588 to 1825 of 2008, decision dated: 17-06-2009 (On appeal against the judgment, dated 9-10-2008 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeals Nos.74(R)(C.E.) of 2001 to 311(R)(C.E.) of 2001)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., CH. IJAZ AHMED AND MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petitions Nos.1588 to 1825 of 2008, decision dated: 17-06-2009 (On appeal against the judgment, dated 9-10-2008 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeals Nos.74(R)(C.E.) of 2001 to 311(R)(C.E.) of 2001)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., CH. IJAZ AHMED AND MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
VS
. S.M. ISMAIL NAQVI and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-------S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Implementation---Respondents got retirement under Mandatory Retirement Scheme but petitioner Corporation did not pay them their dues---Appeal filed by respondents was allowed by Service Tribunal and the petitioner Corporation was directed to pay their dues---Validity---Respondents were employees of petitioner Corporation and were offered certain benefits in lieu of their proceedings on early retirement for certain considerations best known to petitioner Corporation---Beneficial aspect of the policy was vis-a-vis concerned employees was dominant consideration and construction having the effect of depriving them of benefits envisaged therein could not be adopted---Admissibility of annual increments and encashment for PL/Leave Preparatory to Retirement were not allowed by way of concession---On the contrary they were the normal benefits /entitlements admissible to concerned employees, therefore, the same could not be withheld on any ground or principle governing interpretation of instruments, such as the Scheme in question---Supreme Court directed petitioner Corporation to accept the benefit of increments and encashment for PL/Leave Preparatory to Retirement within a period of one month---Leave to appeal was refused. Abdul Hameed Nasir v. National Bank of Pakistan 2003 SCMR 1030 ref. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4---ESTACODE, 2007 Edition, Sr.No.11, Vol. II, page, 1272---Judgment of Serf/ice Tribunal---Filing of appeal---Pre-condition---If it is decided, in consultation with Law and Justice Division that order passed by Service Tribunal does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance for moving Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before Supreme Court, that order should be implemented forthwith under intimation to Registrar, Service Tribunal. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all petitions). Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all petitions). ORDER…
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