Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1993 P L C 384

1993 P L C 384

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]

Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal

SHAUKAT ALI

versus

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI and 2 others

Revision Application No. KAIZ‑569 of 1991, decided on 7th December, 1992.

Industrial dispute‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Wages‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Employee who remained absent from his duty for a period of five years, had ceased to be in service automatically and order to that effect, was duly communicated to employee by employer‑‑‑Once employee was no more in employment of employer and order in respect thereof had duly been communicated to him, he had no claim left for his wages thereafter.

Abdul Majeed, Representative for Informant.

Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui for Respondent No. 1.

DECISION

The circumstances culminating in this appeal are as follows:

2. The applicant was a Fitter with the Railway Department. On 8‑1‑1977 while on duty at the Railway Workshop at Karachi, he met with an accident which had caused injuries to his left shoulder. Shorn of all details suffice it to say that he had filed a claim before the Payment of Wages Authority for his arrears c, f pay from 1‑4‑1977 to 31‑7‑1981. He was awarded a sum of Rs.25,473 and Rs.l0 further by way of compensation. As the appeal had also failed, a writ petition had been filed by the Department which came to be dismissed on 19‑5‑198'7.

3. The applicant had filed a second claim also in the sum of Rs.25,110 and a compensation of Rs.10 from 1‑8‑1981 upto 31‑10‑1983 which came to be allowed in full by the Payment of Wages Authority.

4. The matter was taken in appeal before Labour Court and the order was that he was entitled to the wages from 1‑8‑1981 to 25‑4‑1982 i.e. 9 months out of 27 months only, because an order had been communicated to the informant by the authorities under F.R. 18 on that date, that as he had remained absent from his duty for a period of five years, therefore he had ceased to be in service automatically, with effect from 25‑4‑1982.

5. The learned Payment of Wages Authority had relied upon the judgment of the High Court in this very case in the earlier round, but as rightly pointed Out by the Labour Court in appeal, it did not apply in the instant case. The contention of the Department in the earlier case was only that his absence was unauthorised from 31‑3‑1977 to 26‑9‑1977. It was observed therein as follows:‑‑

"Since admittedly the termination of the service of respondent No. 3 has taken place much later the same cannot be taken into consideration as ground of challenge to the order passed by the Darned Authority under the Payment of Wages or the learned Labour Court that such termination of service took effect retrospectively i.e., 5‑4‑1977."

6. The record shows that in the instant case a specific plea had been taken ands the order of cessation from service had also been produced in evidence. Once the applicant was no more in the employment of the Department and the order had been duly communicated to him, he had no claim left for his wages thereafter.

7. Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned Representative for the Applicant did not challenge 'the vires of the aforesaid Rule.

8. As a result there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order' and the application under section 348(3‑A), I.R.O. stands dismissed.

H.B.T./21: 36/Lb.S Application dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant