Pakistan Case Law← Search
1986 PLC 653

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs ABDUL SATTAR

Citation1986 PLC 653
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
ResultAppeal accepted

The decision, dated 29-5-1985 recorded by learned Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondents was accepted.

2. The respondents in their grievance petition claimed pay of 8 kinds of holidays at the rate of full day pay. The holidays for which the claim was lodged are (1) Eid Milad-un-Nabi, (2) Pakistan Day,

(3) Hijri New Years Day, (4) Quaid-e-Azam Birth Day, (5) Friday, (6) Quaid-e-Azam Death Anniversary, (7) Iqbal Day, (8) First May Day. The learned Lower Court out of the above-mentioned 8 kinds of holidays allowed wages for full day for working on Eid Milad-un-Nabi, Pakistan Day, Hijri New Years Day, Quaid-e-Azam Birth Day and Friday. In the written statement objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that no grievance notice as required by law was served and that the grievance petition was time-barred. The learned Lower Court has tried to meet this objection by saying that the cause of action was of recurring nature but has not explained what are the grounds for holding this view. In para No. 4 of the grievance petition it is mentioned that the arrears of wages for the holidays claimed were paid in. June, 1981 meaning thereby that thereafter no payment was made for the holidays. The cause of grievance arose after June, 1981. No reason has been given why within three months no grievance notice was served. Since the learned lower Court has not given any reason for holding that the cause of grievance was of recurring nature no final opinion can be expressed on the point. The impugned order in this respect is not speaking one.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for decision afresh after deciding the point of limitation giving cogent reasons.

A.E.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search