1983 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS))
S. MUHAMMAD DIN & SONS Versus KHURSHID BEGUM
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | S. MUHAMMAD DIN & SONS Versus KHURSHID BEGUM |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1083 (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 1983 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1983 PLP 1083 (PLC(CS)) (S. MUHAMMAD DIN & SONS Versus KHURSHID BEGUM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akbar for Appellant.
- Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 31st January, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 10‑B Grievance petition before Labour Court‑Right of workman-- Not inheritable‑Heir of deceased workman claiming group insurance amount of deceased under S. O. 10‑B of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968 by petition under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969‑Labour Court, held, could not assume jurisdiction- Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal and petition directEd to be returned for presenta tion to proper forum.
Judgment & Decree
In this appeal the decision dated 6th October, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the recovery of group insurance amount under Standing Order 10‑B of the West Pakistan Industrial. & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was accepted and she was allowed an amount of Rs.6,000.
2. The father of the respondent namely Fateh Muhammad was an employee of the appellant, who died while in service. Although an objection was raised before the learned lower Court that it had no jurisdiction yet I think the case was not properly argued. Under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only a worker is entitled to bring a petition. Fateh Muhammad, deceased, no doubt, may be a worker but his heir cannot be said to be a worker as service of a worker is not an inheritable right. If Fateh Muhammad had A received any .injury and had himself brought claim for group insurance amount under Standing Order 10‑B, of course, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct the return of the petition to the respondent for presen tation to the proper forum.