1989 PLP 384 (PLC)
DIRECTOR (O & M) WASA, FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another Versus GHULAM BILAL
| Citation | 1989 PLP 384 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIRECTOR (O & M) WASA, FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another Versus GHULAM BILAL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XX111 of 1969;‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 384 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XX111 of 1969;‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 384 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1989 PLP 384 (PLC) (DIRECTOR (O & M) WASA, FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another Versus GHULAM BILAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar Oureshi for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 25‑A &, 38(3)‑‑Appeal‑‑Back benefits‑‑Respondent worker challenging his removal from, service made no prayer for reinstatement as he had got a better job and did not want to serve appellant employer any more ‑‑Order of removal of worker from service declared by Labour Court as not sustainable in law‑ statement of worker that he remained jobless from date of removal from service up to a certain date going unrebutted‑‑Order of Labour Court that worker was untitled to hack benefits for that period maintained‑‑Appeal against order of Labour Court also filed after period of limitation‑‑Appeal dismissed as time barred and on merits. Date, of hearing: 221h May, 1988.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. 25‑A &, 38(3)‑‑Appeal‑‑Back benefits‑‑Respondent worker challenging his removal from, service made no prayer for reinstatement as he had got a better job and did not want to serve appellant employer any more ‑‑Order of removal of worker from service declared by Labour Court as not sustainable in law‑ statement of worker that he remained jobless from date of removal from service up to a certain date going unrebutted‑‑Order of Labour Court that worker was untitled to hack benefits for that period maintained‑‑Appeal against order of Labour Court also filed after period of limitation‑‑Appeal dismissed as time barred and on merits. Ali Akbar Oureshi for Appellants. Date, of hearing: 221h May, 1988. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 1‑3‑1988 recorded 17y the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad where the appellants have been directed to pay back benefits to the respondent.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that back benefits are allowed where the worker has been directed to be reinstated in service and since the learned lower Court has not issued any such direction, no question of awarding back benefits to the respondent could arise. The question in such cases is not whether the reinstatement has been sought or not and real question is whether the removal from service has been challenged. The respondent did challenge the order of his removal from service and he has not prayed for reinstatement, in as much as he has got a better job elsewhere and toes not want to serve the appellants any more in future. Since the learned lower Court has found that the order of removal from service was not sustainable and since the respondent deposed in his statement, which went unrebutted, that he from the date of his removal from service up to 4‑8‑1986 remained jobless, the ~2arncd lower Court has rightly allowed back benefits to the respondent for the said period.
3. The appeal is time barred also. It has been argued by the learned counsel or the appellants that since no date for announcement of the order was given, therefore, the appeal is not time barred. The argument is not supported by the record. Presence of both the counsel for the parties is recorded in the decision, meaning thereby that the decision was announced in the presence of the council for the parties the decision is dated 5‑3‑1988. Application for copy was made on '4‑1988. Copy was delivered on 6‑4‑1988 but appeal was presented on 30‑4‑1988 'rid thus is time barred.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine as time barred as well as on f merits. M.Y.H./S80/Lb P Appeal dismissed