' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 22-9-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent has been allowed encashment against L.P.R. For 180 days plus 55% running allowance.
2. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent on the address given in the appeal but he has not appeared to contest the appeal. Therefore, the appeal has been heard ex parte against him.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that although in the written statement an objection was raised that the respondent was not a workman, yet the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding thereon. It has been further argued that the respondent had already retired and was not on duty on the date he had brought the grievance petition, therefore, he has ceased to remain a workman. A perusal of the grievance petition shows that the respondent did not challenge the order of retirement but claimed only encashment of L.P.R.
Including 55% running allowance. The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was not a workman, in these circumstances, needs consideration and since the learned lower Court has not decided the same, the impugned decision is not sustainable.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision including the point whether the respondent is a workman and thus entitled to apply under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.