1995 PLP 164 (PLC)
NOOR ALAM Versus M/s. HALIMA ENTERPRISES, KARACHI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 164 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NOOR ALAM Versus M/s. HALIMA ENTERPRISES, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 164 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 164 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 164 (PLC) (NOOR ALAM Versus M/s. HALIMA ENTERPRISES, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdul Qadir for Appellant.
- S.S. Jehangir for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1994.
- 2. Mr. Muhammad Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the appellant ha, pointed out that the proceedings were ex parte and in the affidavit of ex parte proof the worker had mentioned clearly, in para. 8 of his affidavit, that he was still unemployed and sitting idle and he was not getting any job anywhere. No evidence was offered in rebuttal by the .other side being ex parte.
- 3. Mr. S.S. Jehangir, learned Advocate for the respondents, M/s. Halima Enterprises, has stated that the old business establishment was dissolved soon after the removal of the appellant and he should not, therefore, be penalised for making full payment from his own resources.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Employee who was removed from service was reinstated but without back benefits‑‑‑Evidence on record having fully proved that employee remained unemployed during period of his removal from service, he was entitled to full benefits. National Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1993 PLC 57 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Abdul Qadir for Appellant. S.S. Jehangir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1994. This appeal arises from the order of the Third Sindh Labour Court, at Karachi passed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, reinstating he appellant without awarding back benefits. The only point raised in this appeal is whether withholding back benefits by the Labour Court was justified. The Labour Court found that it was not mentioned in the grievance application that the worker was unemployed after he was removed from service and as such he was not entitled to back benefits.
2. Mr. Muhammad Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the appellant ha, pointed out that the proceedings were ex parte and in the affidavit of ex parte proof the worker had mentioned clearly, in para. 8 of his affidavit, that he was still unemployed and sitting idle and he was not getting any job anywhere. No evidence was offered in rebuttal by the .other side being ex parte.
3. Mr. S.S. Jehangir, learned Advocate for the respondents, M/s. Halima Enterprises, has stated that the old business establishment was dissolved soon after the removal of the appellant and he should not, therefore, be penalised for making full payment from his own resources.
4. In the case of National Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others reported in 1993 PLC 57 it was held by the Karachi High Court that once Labour Court or Appellate Tribunal had come to conclusion that termination of service of an employee was unlawful, such employee, as a matter of course, should be granted back benefits unless employer was able to establish by cogent evidence that concerned employee had been gainfully employed elsewhere. In this case although there is evidence that the appellant was sitting idle there is not even a mention of the fact that he A was gainfully employed anywhere else.
5. Under the circumstances the appellant, alongwith his reinstatement, is allowed all the back benefits to which he is entitled and the appeal is allowed to that extent. H.B.T./2390/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.