1989PLC371 (PLP)
ZAHIDA MIRZA Versus FAYYAD AHMAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, WASA, LDA and another
| Citation | 1989PLC371 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodlti, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZAHIDA MIRZA Versus FAYYAD AHMAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, WASA, LDA and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989PLC371 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989PLC371 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodlti, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989PLC371 (PLP) (ZAHIDA MIRZA Versus FAYYAD AHMAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, WASA, LDA and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Petitioner.
- Ch. Mahboob Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
- 3. The petitioner appeared as his own witness as PW.1 and denied to have entered into any compromise. The story put forward by the respondents is that Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate had inquired from Mr. Hafeez Husain Oureshi, Assistant Director Legal (RW‑2) if he would get an order from the authoritic, concerned to the effect that if the petitioner was willing to forego his back benefits, the decision of the Labour Court to the extent it directed the reinstatement of the petitioner would not be challenged in appeal. The witness further stated that he asked Mr. Tariq Masood that some writing be taken from the petitioner so that he (the witness) could have a talk with the officers concerned and that thereupon the petitioner had brought to him writing Exh.R.l. Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate was examined and he supported the case of the respondents by stating that aft. r the decision of the case the petitioner whose counsel he was in the Labour Court had come to him and told him that he was ready to forego his back benefits if the management did not challenge the decision of the Labour Court in appeal. The witness further stated that he had a talk with Mr. Hafeez Hussain Qureshi (RW.3) who said that if a writing was given, he would talk to the concerned authorities. He further stated that he prepared writing Exh.R‑1 and after getting the signatures of the petitioner delivered it to Mr. Hafeez Hussain Qureshi. The undertaking Exh.R‑1 was produced by Mr. Abdul Hamid Tanvir (RW‑1) who deposed that the document was bearing the signatures of the petitioner on the margin. He further stated that the Managing Director had given the approval that the petitioner be taken on duty on the basis of Exh.R‑1. He proved the signatures of Aziz Masih on Exh.R‑2 and deposed that on account of the undertaking t Jh.R‑1 the department did not prefer any appeal.
- Mr. Tariq Masood, had ceased to remain the counsel for the petitioner after the decision of the case and no written authority was taken from the petitioner. Exh.R‑1 shows that Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate, had put his signatures on the writing not as counsel for the petitioner as he has not described himself as such under his signatures. The writing should have been from the petitioner but it is from Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate. The signatures of the petitioner normally, should have found place below the writing but they occur on the margin, which castes doubt that the signatures were received before the writing was prepared. However, the signatures appear to be of the petitioner as they tally with the ones spearing on the grievance petition and the contempt petition. It is doubtful if the natures were received after Exh.R‑1 had been prepared and was read out to him. Possibility cannot be excluded that the signatures were received first and thereafter writing was prepared. If the document had been put to the petitioner in cross‑examination, he would have explained under what circumstances his natures were received. Since the document was not put to him, therefore, he in his statement stated that he had not signed any paper. This is strange that the writing on the basis of which an attempt was made to deprive the petitioner from right to recover back benefits was not put to him in cross‑examination. It is thus doubtful if the petitioner had in reality foregone his right to receive the back benefits. However, as no definite opinion can be expressed, the benefit of doubt criminal cases always goes to the person who has been accused of the commission of a criminal offence. Since the present is a criminal complaint, merely on doubt, the respondents cannot be punished. The petitioner may, if so advised, seek judicial remedy for the recovery of the back benefits. His petition the basis of doubt is filed.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance Mill: of 1969)‑. --S.38(5)‑‑Contempt proceedings for non‑compliance with order of Labour Court‑‑Criminal proceedings‑‑Benefit of doubt goes to accused‑‑Workman awarded reinstatement with back benefits by Labour Court‑‑Back benefits not ;,,,id on plea that workman by compromise had agreed to forego same if order of t :hour Court was not challenged in appeal and he was reinstated forthwith‑- Workman after reinstatement moving contempt proceedings for non‑compliance k)t order with regard to back benefits and denying any compromise‑‑Compromise document bearing signatures of petitioner but in such manner as not to exclude possibility that signatures were obtained before writing the document‑‑Tribunal reaching conclusion that it was doubtful whether petitioner had foregone his right to receive back benefits‑‑Accused, in circumstances, held, could not be punished in criminal proceedings merely on account of such doubt‑‑Benefit of doubt would go in favour of accused and workman‑petitioner may seek judicial remedy for recovery of back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Ch. Mahboob Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988. This is a petition for contempt of Court brought under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 191,9 for taking action against the respondent for non‑implementation of the order of Labour Court No. 2, Lahore dated 17‑11‑1987.
2. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service by Labour Court No.2, Lahore vide decision dated 17‑11‑1987 marked 'A'. The period of absence from 1‑5‑1982 to 13‑6‑1983 was directed to be treated as leave without pay on medical grounds and it was further directed that the petitioner would get service benefits for the remaining period. The petitioner was put on duty but sine; service benefits were not paid, therefore, he brought the present contempt; petition which has been opposed by the respondents on the plea that after the decision of the case by Labour Court No.2 a compromise was effected between the parties, according to which, it was agreed that the petitioner would forego hi, back benefits and in consideration of it the respondents would not challenge the order of the Labour Court in appeal.
3. The petitioner appeared as his own witness as PW.1 and denied to have entered into any compromise. The story put forward by the respondents is that Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate had inquired from Mr. Hafeez Husain Oureshi, Assistant Director Legal (RW‑2) if he would get an order from the authoritic, concerned to the effect that if the petitioner was willing to forego his back benefits, the decision of the Labour Court to the extent it directed the reinstatement of the petitioner would not be challenged in appeal. The witness further stated that he asked Mr. Tariq Masood that some writing be taken from the petitioner so that he (the witness) could have a talk with the officers concerned and that thereupon the petitioner had brought to him writing Exh.R.l. Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate was examined and he supported the case of the respondents by stating that aft. r the decision of the case the petitioner whose counsel he was in the Labour Court had come to him and told him that he was ready to forego his back benefits if the management did not challenge the decision of the Labour Court in appeal. The witness further stated that he had a talk with Mr. Hafeez Hussain Qureshi (RW.3) who said that if a writing was given, he would talk to the concerned authorities. He further stated that he prepared writing Exh.R‑1 and after getting the signatures of the petitioner delivered it to Mr. Hafeez Hussain Qureshi. The undertaking Exh.R‑1 was produced by Mr. Abdul Hamid Tanvir (RW‑1) who deposed that the document was bearing the signatures of the petitioner on the margin. He further stated that the Managing Director had given the approval that the petitioner be taken on duty on the basis of Exh.R‑
1. He proved the signatures of Aziz Masih on Exh.R‑2 and deposed that on account of the undertaking t Jh.R‑1 the department did not prefer any appeal.
4. Exh.R‑1 was not put to the petitioner when he was in the witness‑box. Mr. Tariq Masood, had ceased to remain the counsel for the petitioner after the decision of the case and no written authority was taken from the petitioner. Exh.R‑1 shows that Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate, had put his signatures on the writing not as counsel for the petitioner as he has not described himself as such under his signatures. The writing should have been from the petitioner but it is from Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate. The signatures of the petitioner normally, should have found place below the writing but they occur on the margin, which castes doubt that the signatures were received before the writing was prepared. However, the signatures appear to be of the petitioner as they tally with the ones spearing on the grievance petition and the contempt petition. It is doubtful if the natures were received after Exh.R‑1 had been prepared and was read out to him. Possibility cannot be excluded that the signatures were received first and thereafter writing was prepared. If the document had been put to the petitioner in cross‑examination, he would have explained under what circumstances his natures were received. Since the document was not put to him, therefore, he in his statement stated that he had not signed any paper. This is strange that the writing on the basis of which an attempt was made to deprive the petitioner from right to recover back benefits was not put to him in cross‑examination. It is thus doubtful if the petitioner had in reality foregone his right to receive the back benefits. However, as no definite opinion can be expressed, the benefit of doubt criminal cases always goes to the person who has been accused of the commission of a criminal offence. Since the present is a criminal complaint, merely on doubt, the respondents cannot be punished. The petitioner may, if so advised, seek judicial remedy for the recovery of the back benefits. His petition the basis of doubt is filed. A.E./571/Lb.P Petition filed.