1986 PLP 309 (PLC)
JAMES MASIH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN
| Citation | 1986 PLP 309 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | JAMES MASIH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 309 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 309 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 309 (PLC) (JAMES MASIH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Appellant.
- Iqbal Ahmad Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Suspension‑‑Order set aside by Labour Court being illegal‑‑Wages for suspension period, in circumstances, held, cannot be withheld‑‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A &38(3).
Judgment & Decree
H.R. Haider for Appellant. Iqbal Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1985. The decision dated 28‑1‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9 Multan has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. On account of the commission of alleged misconduct the appellant was suspended. He applied for setting aside the supension order. The prayer was accepted by the learned lower Court but wages were not allowed for the reason that the allegation made against him was of serious nature. But this ground given by the learned lower Court is not sufficient. Since order has been set aside the appellant is entitled to back benefits. Since the appellant was suspended and was not removed from service, he remained in service during the period of suspension, so no question of getting employment elsewhere, during the period of suspension arises. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the period of suspension was declared as qualifying service without wages. Whatever may have been held by the authority who suspended the appellant, since the very order of the suspension has been set aside, the direction could not be with regard to denying entitlement to the wages went away alongwith the order of suspension. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the enquiry was held and punishment of W.I.P. was passed against the appellant. The appellant did not challenge the punishment of W.I.P., therefore, no question arises at this stage. However, the said punishment was not justified. Suspension is not a punishment. Since it was illegal it was rightly set aside and since the said order has not been challenged in any cross‑appeal or cross‑objections before this Tribunal, nothing can he said in that respect.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is allowed the wages for the period of suspension minus what actually he has received if any. A.E, Appeal accepted.