1988 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus Prop. TARIQ SILK FACTORY, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 1988 PLP 696 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus Prop. TARIQ SILK FACTORY, GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 696 (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 1988 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 696 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus Prop. TARIQ SILK FACTORY, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zafar Saleem for Petitioner.
- H.R. Haider for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(5)‑‑Contempt proceedings‑‑Reinstatement awarded by Labour Court confirmed in appeal by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Contempt of Court alleged for not allowing duty‑‑No proof that petitioner had reported for joining duty and that same was refused‑‑petition for contempt proceedings, dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(5)‑‑Contempt proceedings‑‑Reinstatement awarded by Labour Court confirmed in appeal by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Contempt of Court alleged for not allowing duty‑‑No proof that petitioner had reported for joining duty and that same was refused‑‑petition for contempt proceedings, dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Zafar Saleem for Petitioner. H.R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1988. This is a petition brought under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for punishing the respondent for committing contempt of Court by not giving duty to the petitioner in compliance with the order of reinstatement recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.S, Gujranwala dated 26‑7‑1984 and confirmed in appeal by this Tribunal on 18‑6‑1985. This Tribunal had by the decision dated 18‑6‑1985 modified the decision of the learned lower Court to the extent of disallowing back benefits to the petitioner maintaining the order of reinstatement. The respondent in answer to the contempt petition took up the plea that the petitioner never came to join duty and that he has closed the factory, therefore; no question of giving duty arises. The petitioner examined Ashiq Munir AW‑1 and appeared as his own witness. Neither the petitioner nor his witness stated that the factory not been closed and that it was functioning. The respondent categorically stated in his statement that the petitioner never came to him to join duty since he knew that the factory had been closed. In spite of this assertion made by the respondent he was not cross‑examined on the point by the petitioner. It was not suggested to him that the factory had not been closed and that it was functioning. No finding need be recorded on the point whether the factory is functioning or has been closed but the petitioner has failed to establish that he had asked the respondent for duty and that it was refused. Thus no act of the respondent amounting to contempt of Court stands established. The petition, therefore, is filed. A.E. /505/Lb.P Petition filed.