1993 PLP 913 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD FAZIL Versus Chaudhry RASHID, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL
| Citation | 1993 PLP 913 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAZIL Versus Chaudhry RASHID, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 913 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 913 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1993 PLP 913 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD FAZIL Versus Chaudhry RASHID, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑‑Complaint not disclosing commission of an offence punishable under S. 38(5)‑‑‑Production of evidence in support of complaint not allowed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑‑Complaint not disclosing commission of an offence punishable under S. 38(5)‑‑‑Production of evidence in support of complaint not allowed. H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 4th November, 1986. This is a petition under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 alleging that the respondent has not, in compliance with the orders of learned Labour Court and this Tribunal dated 1‑11‑1980 and 4‑10‑1983, respectively, prepared service book, treated the petitioner as a permanent employee, has brought about two days' break in the petitioner's service by not paying two days pay for the month of August, 1986 and has not issued so far confirmation order. It is also contended that salary of work -charged employee is being paid to him. The complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under section 38(5) of the Ordinance. The direction of the learned Labour Court was only to reinstate the petitioner with back benefits. No direction can be found in the order dated 1‑11‑1980 for the preparation of service book, paying salary of a particular scale or post and issuing confirmation letter etc. If two days' pay has been paid less for the month of August, 1986 illegally, it may amount to a deduction but in the absence of an order of termination from service and then passing an order of re‑employment would not amount to causing a break in service. It is not urged that the services of the petitioner were terminated and after two days he was re‑employed. Learned counsel has requested that opportunity be given for producing evidence but when the very complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence under section 38(5), no question of proving the allegations made in the complaint arises.
2. As a result, the complaint is filed. A.E./221/Lb.P Petition dismissed.