Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE VS Respondent: AHMED KHAN
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs AHMED KHAN Case No.: Appeal No, LHR-198 of 1987 Date of Judgment:1987-09-07 Reported As: 1989 PLC 172 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The appeal captioned above challenged the correctness of the decision dated 14-5-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the recovery of six months' salary in lieu of LPR was accepted. 2. The petition of the respondent was opposed by the appellant on the plea that option had not been given to the Rules of 1980. No doubt, by means of Gazette Notification it was provided that option may be taken from the persons who were governed by the State Rules of 1980 but no period is fixed up to which the employees were entitled to give the option. Since the respondent claimed encashment of leave in lieu of LPR while he was still in service it means that he wanted the benefits of the Leave Rules of 1980 and thus amounts to an option. No preform is given for giving an option, therefore, any writing which shows that the employee claims the benefit of Rules may amount to an option in the said Rules. In cases where period for giving an option is fixed, the employees are bound to give the option within the said period. The word "immediate" does not fix a reasonable time. 3. It has been argued that the petition was time-barred inasmuch as the claim of the respondent was rejected and intimation was sent, copy of which is Exh. R-2. R-2 is the copy of the letter no doubt, but it has not been shown that it was delivered personally or it was served by post inasmuch as neither any personal receipt nor postal A.D. Has been produced. 4. In these circumstances discussed above, the learned lower Court was justified in accepting the claim of the respondent. The appeal being without any substance is dismissed.