OMAR SIAL, J.---This judgment will dispose of the captioned appeal.
1. The relevant facts for the purposes of this appeal are as follows.
(a) The Appellant, Nisar Ahmed, was an employee of the Respondent, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, from 1-3-1974. According to the Appellant he resigned from his employment on 3-5- 2000. According to the Respondent, the Appellant was terminated w,e,f, 29-6-2000.
(b) The Appellant filed a Service Appeal No,636(K)/2000 and 14(K)(CE)/2001 before the Federal Services Tribunal impugning his termination by the Respondent. While these proceedings were pending, the parties entered into a compromise.
(c) According to the compromise dated 1-8-2002 reached between the parties, the Respondent agreed to accept the resignation of the Appellant w,e,f, 29-6-2000 and also agreed to pay all legal dues including gratuity, provident fund, balance earned leave and travelling allowance to the Appellant within thirty days i,e, by or before 1-9-2002 in accordance with the PNSC regulations.
(d) On 10-9-2002, in furtherance of the compromise, the Respondent made a payment of Rs,1,416,960 to the Appellant. The same was also received by the Appellant. There is no dispute or disagreement between the parties over the receipt of this amount.
(e) The dispute arose when the Appellant claimed that the Respondent had not cleared the total legal dues owed to him. Accordingly, he filed a Suit for Recovery bearing number 1731 of 2006 before the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller No,III at Karachi West for the recovery of an amount of Rs,1,536,868.
(f) After hearing all parties, the learned judge decided that an amount of Rs,98,814 was due to the Appellant from the Respondent on account of Gratuity and travelling allowance thereby on 25-5- 2011 decreed that the same be paid to the Appellant. This payment was made to the Appellant vide a cheque bearing number DAN 8646097 on 26-2-2016.
(g) The Appellant preferred an appeal against the decree of the trial court before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (IV), Karachi, East to the extent of the profit on the provident fund owed to him by the Respondent which had not been taken into account by the trial court. The Appellate Court observed that the Appellant was claiming profit on the provident fund amount for the period 1-7-2002 to 30-6-2006 but as the Appellant had served as an employee till the year 2000, he was not entitled to the profit he sought for the period 1-7-2002 to 30-6-2006. Accordingly, the Appellate Court on 30-3-2013 passed a judgment and declined to interfere with the findings of the trial court and on 14-9-2013 the decree was passed.
(h) Through this Appeal, the Appellant has impugned the Appellate Court judgment to the extent of the profit due to him on the provident fund. In this second appeal, he also prays for recovery of amounts due against leave encashment. As the dispute regarding the leave encashment amount was not pleaded by the Appellant before the Appellate Court, the same appears to be an after- thought and hence is not considered. The only question therefore in this appeal that has to be decided is regarding whether or not the Appellant is entitled to the profit on the provident fund for the period that he claims i,e, 1-7-2000 to 31-8-2002.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the available record.
My observations are as follows.
3. Had the parties been more diligent at the stage of the compromise they reached, it would have avoided years of litigation.
4. It is an admitted and undisputed position that in terms of the compromise dated 1.8.2002 reached between the parties, the Respondent agreed to accept the resignation of the Appellant w,e,f, 29-6-2000 and also agreed to pay all legal dues including gratuity, provident fund, balance earned leave and travelling allowance to the Appellant within thirty days i,e, by or before 1-9-2002 in accordance with the PNSC regulations.
5. It is also an admitted position that pursuant to the compromise, the provident fund due to the Appellant till 30-6-2000 amounting to Rs,1,416,960 has also been paid to the Appellant vide a cheque bearing number 0540851 on 10-9-2002. The Appellant also admits to the same in his calculations in the memo. of appeal.
6. It appears that a deduction on account of provident fund for an amount of Rs,8034 was also made by the Respondent for the year 2000-2001.
7. If the Appellant had received the amount of 1,416,960 on 1-7-2000, he would have earned profit on it from 1-7-2000 to 10-9-2002, that profit is due to the Appellant which calculated at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum would have come to Rs,311,350. A further amount as profit would have been payable for the period on the Rs,8034 which comes to approximately Rs,1,767.
8. The total amount as profit payable to the Appellant was Rs,311,350 + Rs,1,767 =Rs,313,117 as on 10- 9-2002.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed to the extent of Rs,313,117 payable to the Appellant by the Respondent together with profit on this amount from 11-9-2002 at the prevailing 3-year KIBOR rate till realization within one month from the date of this judgment. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.