1991 PLP 722 (PLC(CS))
Mst. NOOR JEHAN Versus SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD
| Citation | 1991 PLP 722 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Mst. NOOR JEHAN Versus SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 722 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 722 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 722 (PLC(CS)) (Mst. NOOR JEHAN Versus SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Faiz Ghangro for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th September, 1990.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Faiz Ghangro, Advocate for the appellant. None is present for the respondents. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Death of petitioner‑‑‑Employee after his dismissal from service filed grievance petition and died‑‑‑Petitioner claimed two reliefs in his petition; one for reinstatement and other for back benefits‑‑‑Held, due to his death, his claim for reinstatement could not be enforced while his right to get arrears of dues, if order of his dismissal was held to be illegal, would survive and would devolve upon his legal heirs‑‑‑In absence of a specific provision as to whether in such case right of petitioner would lapse or continue, Tribunal and Labour Court would accept proposition that was favourable to workman‑‑ Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on ground that petition lapsed due to death of petitioner was set aside and case was remanded to be decided o merits. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A‑‑‑Labour Laws having been for welfare of workers‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal and Labour Court thus would accept proposition that was favourable to workman.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 25-A
Labour Laws having been for welfare of workers
Labour Appellate Tribunal and Labour Court thus would accept proposition that was favourable to workman. Faiz Ghangro for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th September, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sixth Sindh Labour Court at Hyderabad, dated 6-8-1989, whereby the grievance application of one Syed Abid Ali Shah deceased husband of the present appellant was dismissed on the ground that petition lapsed due to the death of the petitioner.
2. I have heard Mr. Faiz Ghangro, Advocate for the appellant. None is present for the respondents. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. In the grievance petition, the workman had claimed two reliefs, one for reinstatement and other for back benefits. Due to his death, he cannot be reinstated but his right to get the arrears of dues if the order of dismissal is held to be illegal would survive and would devolve upon his legal heirs.
4. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that petition lapsed because there was no such specific provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance that on death of the workman his rights would survive. No doubt there was such provision under section 10(8) of Repealed Industrial Disputes Act. But mere fact that this provision has been omitted in the I.R.O. would not necessarily mean that legislature intended to deprive the legal heirs of the legal dues of the workman. In absence of specific provision as to whether in such case the rights of the petitioner would lapse or continue, the Tribunal and the Labour Court would accept the proposition that is favourable to the workman, as the Labour Laws are for the welfare of the workmen. As such I set aside the; order of the learned Labour Court and remand the case to the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court is directed to decide the case on merits because if the workman is held to be illegally removed from his service, his heirs would have the right to receive his legal dues upto the date of his death. M.Y.H./1754/Lb. S Case remanded.