'ASAD MUNIR (CHAIRMAN).--- The respondent, Khurshid Ahmad, joined the Punjab Road Transport Corporation ("the PRTC") as a Junior Clerk on 18-8-1984. Pursuant to the Government of the Punjab's decision to wind up the PRTC, a Golden Handshake Scheme ("the Scheme") dated 21-6-1997 was floated by the PRTC to offer its employees the additional monetary benefits equivalent to 2 months' basic pay and one's month's pay including allowances in consideration of their voluntary retirement with effect from 30-6-1997. Para 2 of the Scheme clarified that the two months' basic pay and one month's pay with allowances would be paid in addition to the dues admissible under the PRTC's relevant rules and regulations. Many PRTC employees accepted the offered Scheme but several employees including the respondent did not opt for the Scheme. However, the PRTC vide its letters dated 30-9-1997 terminated the services of the respondent and others on the ground that their services had "become redundant to the requirement of PRTC" as that there was "complete stoppage of work" in PRTC due to "colossal financial losses sustained for the last many years". The 'respondent and nine other terminated employees filed a joint petition, under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to seek their reinstatement in service on the ground that their services had been illegally terminated. However, the respondent and others relinquished their claim for reinstatement in service provided their legal dues were paid to them. In view thereof, the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, through its order consenting dated 18-12-1999, disposed of the grievance petition with a direction to the appellant-PRTC to pay all the legal dues of the respondent and others by 31-1-2000. In the light of the learned Labour Court's order dated 18-12- 1999, the respondent on 18-12-1999 submitted his application for payment of dues whereupon a sum of Rs,1,24,576 was paid to him on account of commutation in pension. However, the respondent was dissatisfied as he claimed that he was paid less to the extent of Rs,38,915 as PRTC had withheld Rs,19,890, due on account of commutation of pension and Rs,19,055, due on account of the encashment of 193 days un-availed leave as well as Rs,500, being the refundable security amount deposited by the respondent when he joined service as a Driver. Aggrieved by the non- payment of his legal dues amounting to Rs,38,346, the respondent on 26-7-2000, filed an application, under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the enforcement of the learned Labour Court's order dated 18-12-1999. By its order dated 2-1-2000, the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, has accepted the respondent's application and directed the appellant-PRTC to pay the outstanding dues to the respondent as prayed for by him.
2. While calling into question the legality of learned Labour Court's order dated 2-11-2000, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant PRTC that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs,1,24,576, on account of commutation of pension, was correctly worked out as the respondent had submitted his pension papers belatedly and that the learned Labour Court has also wrongly applied Rule 25(1) of the adopted Revised Leave Rules, 1981, as the respondent, in view of Rule 15 ibid, was not entitled to the encashment of un-availed leave of 193 days for having not completed 26 years' service in PRTC. In support, reference was also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 16-9-1999, passed in Civil Petitions Nos.781-L to 785-L of 1999 and judgment dated 29-7-2008, passed in Civil Appeals Nos.786 and 787 of 2007 and the Hon'ble Lahore High Court's judgment dated 6-3-2013, passed in Writ Petition No,8646 of 2012. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order for the reasons recorded therein and has also placed reliance on the Managing Director's letter dated 22- 12-1999 to argue that it was decided by PRTC that while calculating the pension and other payable dues "no deduction shall be made on account of late submission of the pension papers."
3. In the light of the arguments advanced by both the sides, the first issue that arises for consideration is whether or not the PRTC was justified to grant to the respondent a 'lesser amount in terms of commutation of his pension on the ground that he applied for his pension belatedly with the result that the formula of next date of birth was applied to him. In this regard, reliance has been placed by the respondent on the Managing Director's letter dated 22-12-1999 which was issued a few days later pursuant to the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore's order dated 18-12-1999.
This letter also kept in view the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 16-9-1999 whereby it was ordered that no deduction would be made for late submission of pension papers in the case of PRTC employees who had not opted for the Scheme. There is no dispute about the authenticity of this letter as the PRTC's Assistant Legal has admitted that it was duly issued by the Managing Director, PRTC. From a perusal of this letter, it is evident that the 10 employees mentioned therein, including the respondent, were not to be penalized and no deduction was to be made for late submission of their pension papers while calculating their pension claims. In the face of its Managing Director's letter dated 22-12-1999, the appellant-PRTC cannot deny to any extent the benefit of commutation of pension due to the respondent. At the same time, the PRTC's Assistant Legal has admitted that no deduction in commutation of pension has been made for the late submission of pension papers in the case of Ali Javed, one of the ten employees mentioned in the said letter. In any case, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 's judgment dated 16-9-1999, no deduction could be made for late submission of pension papers in the case of PRTC employees who had not opted for the Scheme. In the circumstances, the claim of less payment in terms of commutation of pension has been rightly awarded, by the learned Labour Court.
4. As regards the respondent's claim of Rs,.19055 on account of encashment of the tin-availed leave of 193 days, the learned Labour Court has held that it is due and payable in view of Rule 25 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1981, whereas PRTC contends that no rule provides for leave encashment except Rule 15 ibid whereunder encashment of leave preparatory to retirement ("LPR") for a maximum of 180 days is allowed to an employee who has rendered at least 26 years' service and that the respondent cannot take advantage of Rule 15 ibid as he had not completed 26 years' service in PRTC. It may be stated that the Revised Leave Rules, 1981, issued under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, became applicable to all PRTC employees after they were adopted by PRTC vide its letter dated 30-7-1987.
5. No doubt, Rule 15, as amended vide Government of Punjab's notification dated 12-5-1990, would apply only when an employee seeks LPR or its encashment as he reaches the age of superannuation or retires voluntarily after having rendered 26 years' service. As such, Rule 15 cannot cover the case of the respondent as he had rendered less than 26 years' service to the PRTC. However, the question that needs to be answered is whether the respondent can seek encashment of the un availed leave of 193 days, admittedly lying to his credit in his leave account, on the strength of Rule 25(1) which reads as under:--- "25. Leave due may be granted upon abolition of post etc.--- (1) When a post is abolished, leave due to the civil servant, whose services are terminated in consequence thereof, shall be granted without regard to the availability of a post for the period of leave."
6. The afore-quoted Rule 25(1) applies only when services of an employee are terminated on account of abolition of his post. Such termination of service cannot be confused with the retirement visualized under Rule 15 which deals with an employee who retires from service voluntarily or upon reaching the age of superannuation. In terms of Rule 25(1), the leave due has to be granted to an employee whose services are terminated in consequence of the abolition of his post. In such a situation, the terminated employee is entitled to receive pay for the entire period of un-availed leave as the Revised Leave Rules, 1981, do not impose any ceiling or limit on the un- availed leave all of which is carried forward in the leave account to the credit of the employee. In the instant case, the services of the respondent were terminated by the PRTC vide its letter dated 30-9-1997 for having "become redundant to the requirement of PRTC" due to the closure of its operations. In other words, the respondent's services were terminated as he had become surplus to the requirements of the PRTC. His services were terminated as he had become redundant or surplus which only means that the respondent was shown the door as his post of Junior Clerk stood abolished or was no longer in existence. As such, I am in agreement with the learned Labour Court's finding that in the circumstances of the case, the respondent's post was abolished wherefor he is entitled to the encashment of his un-availed leave of 193 days in terms of Rule 25(1) of IC the Revised Leave Rules, 1981. Reference was made to the Government of Punjab's notification dated 12-5-1990 to argue that no leave encashment is due to the respondent under the Government of Punjab's Pension Rules, adopted by PRTC on 10-5-1989, as the respondent has served the PRTC for less than 26 years. This argument is untenable as the referred notification pertains to the encashment for LPR and does not apply to the respondent's claim which has arisen on his termination consequent upon the abolition of his post. In any case, it cannot be said that the said Pension Rules are in any manner in conflict with the Revised Leave Rules, 1981. Reference was also made to the Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated 6-3-2013 but the said judgment is distinguishable as it dealt with the case of such PRTC employees who were granted encashment for 180 days un-availed leave under the terms of the Golden Handshake Scheme which they had accepted at a later stage. Referring to paras 7(ii) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments dated 16-9-1999 and 29-7-2008, it was further argued that the respondent, having not accepted the Golden Handshake Scheme, is deemed to have been retired. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 7(ii) of its judgments only declared that "the petitioners not accepting the Golden Handshake offer shall be deemed to have been retired subject to their eligibility as laid down by the rules/regulations/instructions of the Corporation". Being less than 40 years old at the time of his termination, the respondent cannot be deemed to have been retired as he was not at all eligible for retirement in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations or instructions of the PRTC.
7. For what has been stated above, this appeal is dismissed for being without merit.