Pakistan Case Law
2005 PLC (C.S.) 1439

CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPER LIMITED/THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2005 PLC (C.S.) 1439
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 2680-L of 2004
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher
Authored byKhalil-Ur-Rehman Ramday
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the non-payment of pension to an employee of Progressive Paper Limited. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent's claim for pension was barred by limitation and whether the respondent was entitled to pension benefits. The Federal Service Tribunal had previously held that the receipt of pension constitutes a continuing cause of action, thereby rejecting the limitation objection, and further determined that the employee was entitled to pension benefits based on established precedent, noting a lack of evidence regarding payment or waiver. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no illegality in the impugned judgment that would warrant the grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that the claim was not time-barred due to the nature of the continuing cause of action and the uncertainty of the appropriate legal forum during the relevant period. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the petitioner for vexatious litigation.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the non-payment of pension constitute a continuing cause of action for the purpose of limitation?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution if no illegality is shown in the impugned judgment?
  • Is an employee entitled to pension benefits if the employer fails to provide evidence of payment or waiver of such rights?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973
  • Article 212(3) of the Constitution
pension entitlementcontinuing cause of actionlimitation periodService Tribunals Actleave to appealvexatious litigationemployment dispute

' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The first respondent felt aggrieved of non-payment of pension to him since 1-12-1996. He approached the Labour Court for the redress of his said grievance but on account of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the said respondent approached the Federal Service Tribunal to seek the same relief. The petitioner opposed the said respondent's appeal before the learned Tribunal initially on the ground that his appeal was barred by time and also for the reason that whatever was due to the said respondent had been naid to him.

2. The learned Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection vis-a-vis the limitation on the ground the receipt of pension was a continuing cause of action and could be agitated at any time. This objection was not sustainable also on the ground that on account of the fluent situation of law, no one was sure of the forum before which such grievance could be agitated.

3. On the merits of the case, it was found by the learned Tribunal that it had already declared through a judgment dated 4-10-2003 passed in Appeals bearing Nos.1339 to 1367(L) of 1999 that the employees of the PPL were entitled to the grant of pension. It was further found by the learned Tribunal that no evidence had been placed on record to show either that the pension had been paid to the first respondent or that he had waived his said right in any manner.

4. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length who could not show any illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal which could have entitled the petitioner to the grant of leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.

5. The petitioner had denied pension to an employee for almost 10 years and had dragged him into litigation before all kind of fora. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000 to the said respondent, as costs, within one month and the copies of the receipts evidencing the said payment shall be filed with the Assistant Registrar of this Court within the said period of time, for the information of this Bench.

Cited by 18 cases

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