1996 PLP 341 (PLC(CS))
MASOOD JAVED and 7 others Versus FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN
| Citation | 1996 PLP 341 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MASOOD JAVED and 7 others Versus FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 341 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 341 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 341 (PLC(CS)) (MASOOD JAVED and 7 others Versus FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellants.
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A, 37(3) & 51
Back benefits
Employees who were ordered to be re-instated in service without back benefit, had claimed back benefits in their appeals
Since employees had not claimed any back benefits in their grievance petition filed before Labour Court, they could not claim back benefits at stage of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Appellants. Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th December, 1995. These are 8 appeals against Fauji Sugar Mills for wrongful termination and for back benefits. Their grievance petitions were filed before Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad and they were ordered to be re‑instated within a period of 15 days but they were disallowed any back benefits. They have filed these appeals to claim the back benefits.
2. It has been pointed out by Mr. Raees Mushtaq on behalf of the Fauji Sugar Mills that the appellants had neither claimed any back benefits in their grievance petition nor had they led any evidence that they were not gainfully employed during the period they were out of job. On the other hand he has stated that these workers during the period in question were gainfully employed in Sindh Abadgar Sugar Mills. That it was for these reasons that the back benefits were not allowed by the Labour Court. Since there was no claim of back benefits in the grievance petition the same cannot be claimed now, at this stage of appeal. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./8/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.