1989 PLP 684 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus BASHIR AHMAD CHEEMA
| Citation | 1989 PLP 684 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus BASHIR AHMAD CHEEMA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 684 (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 1989 PLP 684 (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: 1989 PLP 684 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus BASHIR AHMAD CHEEMA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saifullah Khan for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Objection in written statement that petitioner was not a workman‑‑Labour Court without recording any findings on such objection accepting petition‑‑Decision of Labour Court, held. was not sustainable‑‑Case remanded for redecision.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Objection in written statement that petitioner was not a workman‑‑Labour Court without recording any findings on such objection accepting petition‑‑Decision of Labour Court, held. was not sustainable‑‑Case remanded for redecision. Saifullah Khan for Appellants. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 22‑9‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent has been allowed encashment against L.P.R. for 180 days plus 55% running allowance.
2. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent on the address given in the appeal but he has not appeared to contest the appeal. Therefore, the appeal has been heard ex parte against him. 3, It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the written statement an objection was raised that the respondent was not a man yet the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding thereon. It been further argued that the respondent had already retired and was not on duty on the date he had brought the grievance petition, therefore, he has ceased to remain a workman. A perusal of the grievance petition shows that the respondent did not challenge the order of retirement but claimed only encashment of L.P.R. including 55% running allowance. The point raised by they A learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was not a workman, in these circumstances, needs consideration and since the learned lower Court has not decided the same, the impugned decision is not sustainable.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for redecision including the point whether the respondent is a workman and thus entitled to apply under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. A.E./617/Lb.P Case remanded.