DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against an impugned order, dated 27-9-1986, passed by the. Sind Labour. Court, No, 1, Karachi, who had allowed the application for payment of certain dues filed by the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been employed in the appellant Corporation as Clerk with effect from 23-11-1971 and to have been retired from the employment on 21-2-1985 in the capacity of a Superintendent and at that time, he was not allowed Notice pay, gratuity and leave pay, as per practice/agreement in between the management and the C.B.A.
Union.
3. The appellant Corporation resisted the petition and had submitted that the respondent at the time of his retirement was getting basic pay of Rs, 1,385 and not Rs, 1,400 and that as per agreement arrived at between the management and the union he had already been paid 180 days encashment as well as the encashment of L.P.R. Therefore, he was not entitled to any Notice Pay.
Further, it was submitted by the appellant Corporation that as the respondent was an ex-Service man therefore, he was also not entitled to Gratuity as per K.T.C. Rules as it was admissible only to those employees who were getting Rs, 50 per month as pension and that an amount of Rs, 14,257.40 was also paid to him as G.P. Fund, so, as per Labour Laws, he was not entitled to get both facilities. The appellant Corporation also took a legal objection that the grievance petition was not maintainable being barred by time.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation and Mr. Abdul Munim Khan, the learned representative for the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. As regards the point of Limitation Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation did not press it. At the very outset, I would observe here that from perusal of the impugned order and the record of the learned Labour Court it would be evident that the appellant Corporation did not properly and seriously resist their case before the learned Labour Court and it was not all vigilant and careful to resist their case, therefore, it has to suffer consequence of the impugned order on account of its own fault and it would not be reasonable for the appellant Corporation to challenge the impugned order in the present appeal. As, there was no lawful evidence on behalf of the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court, therefore, it was quite correct in passing of the impugned order which needs not to be interfered with. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation has miserably failed to substantiate his contentions in support of his appeal. In view of the above position, the appellant Corporation has no case.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The amount of dues of the respondent already deposited before this Tribunal be paid to him immediately after due verification.