Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2005 P L C 114

2005 P L C 114

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Tanvir Ahmed Khan Chairman, Muhammad Shabbir Jamal and Syed Akhtar Naqi Naqvi Members,

MUHAMMAD BASHIR SULEHRIA

Versus

M.C.L. through Administrator Now District City Government Lahore and others

Cases Nos. 12(86) and 24(238) of 2002‑L decided on 15th September, 2004.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss.22‑A(8)(g), 22‑D & 51‑‑‑National Industrial Relations Commission. (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973 Regl. 32‑‑‑Pre‑mature retirement‑‑‑Stay order‑‑‑Withdrawal of, stay order‑‑‑Deduction of benefits gained by appellant‑‑Notice of pre‑mature retirement issued to appellant/employee was challenged by appellant‑‑‑Stay order granted to appellant by Single Member of National Industrial Relations Commission, was withdrawn and petition filed by appellant was also dismissed‑‑‑Subsequent to dismissal of petition, direction was issued to deduct benefits gained by appellant after issuance of notice of retirement‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellant secured certain service benefits after grant of stay order from Single Member of National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑‑Said benefits which appellant got during currency of restraint order passed by the Commission, could not be deducted from his pension‑‑‑Benefits which appellant secured by rendering his service till dismissal of his petition, could not be deducted.

The Engineer‑in‑Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and another v. Jalaluddin 1992 PLC 207 ref.

H.R. Haider for appellant.

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20‑5‑2002 whereby petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Facts briefly are that the appellant was appointed in the respondent establishment as a Naib Qasid B.S‑I in the year, 1969. He was promoted as a Mate in B.S‑4. During his service he was an active member of the Trade Union. He was. President of Mulazmeen Darja Chaharam of MCL as well as President of MCL Employees Federation. A notice of premature retirement according to the appellant was issued to him on 30th of June, 1994. He challenged the same before this Commission through Case No.4A(369)/94‑L. A stay order was granted by a learned Single Member which was withdrawn on 24‑11‑1997 when p the petition was also dismissed.

Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition, respondent functionaries issued an office order whereby direction was issued to deduct the benefits gained by the appellant after issuance of notice of retirement.

The appellant challenged the said order and the learned Single Member through the impugned judgment has dismissed the same. Hence this appeal.

We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody has entered appearance from the respondent side as such they are proceeded, ex parte. It is, reflected from the file that the appellant secured certain service benefits after the grant of stay order from the learned Single Member of the Commission. In the circumstances those benefit's which he got during currency of the restraint order passed by the Commission cannot be deducted from his pension. Reliance in this respect is placed on PLC 1992 Page 207. The Engineer‑in‑Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another versus Jalaluddin wherein it was held as under:

"Locus poenitentiae is the power of receding till a decisive step is taken. But it is not, a principle of law that order once passed become irrevocable, and it is past and closed transaction. If the order is illegal then perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of an illegal order. The appellants when came to know that on the basis of incorrect letter, the respondent was granted Grade‑II, they withdrew the said letter. The principle of locus poenitentiae would not apply in this case. However, as the respondent had received the amount on the bona fide belief, the appellant is not entitled to recover the amount drawn by the respondent during the period when the latter remained in the field."

Resultantly the appeal is accepted to the extent that the benefits which the appellant, secured by rendering his service till the dismissal of his petition on 24‑11‑1997 be not deducted. The appeal is accepted in the above terms.

H.B.T./121/NIRC Order accordingly.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant