Case ID |
0f7786d4-74c2-404b-9527-0110c5042c53 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
HYD-66 of 1989 |
Decision Date |
Nov 29, 1990 |
Hearing Date |
Nov 29, 1990 |
Decision |
The Revision Application was dismissed as the applicant, Abdul Hakeem, had opted for the Old Retirement Benefit Rules, which only entitled him to a Provident Fund and not to pension/gratuity. The court held that the applicant had knowingly signed the option form and could not claim benefits under the new Pension Rules after accepting the dues under the old scheme. The decision of the Labour Court was upheld, emphasizing the binding nature of the Wage Commission Award and the necessity of employee consent in changing terms of service. |
Summary |
In this case, Abdul Hakeem, a Jamadar Guard at the National Bank of Pakistan, filed a Revision Application after being denied pension and gratuity upon retirement, despite the Wage Commission Award of 1975 entitling him to such benefits. The court examined the applicant's choice to opt for the Old Retirement Benefits, which strictly provided for a Provident Fund. The ruling underscored the importance of informed consent in employment contracts, particularly when changes to benefits are proposed. The case highlights the intersection of employee rights and organizational policies under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, emphasizing the need for clarity in communication between employers and employees regarding retirement benefits. Keywords include 'employee rights', 'retirement benefits', 'Industrial Relations Ordinance', 'Wage Commission Award', and 'National Bank of Pakistan'. |
Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
|
Entities Involved |
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
|
Judges |
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI
|
Lawyers |
Mirza Usman Baig,
Partab Rai
|
Petitioners |
ABDUL HAKEEM
|
Respondents |
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, HYDERABAD
|
Citations |
1992 SLD 1131,
1992 PLC 1118
|
Other Citations |
Not available
|
Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
|
Sections |
38(3a),
51
|