1990 PLP 604 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ORANGI DEPOT
| Citation | 1990 PLP 604 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ORANGI DEPOT |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 604 (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 1990 PLP 604 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind 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: 1990 PLP 604 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ORANGI DEPOT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Rashid Ahmad for Appellant.
- Gul Muhammad Soomro for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑ Reinstatement‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Labour Court found that there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove charges and awarded reinstatement but disallowed back benefits‑‑‑Neither any positive proof on record that petitioner workman remained out of job or was gainfully employed elsewhere during intervening period nor any averment that he was not so gainfully employed‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal, allowed back benefits to workman to the extent of fifty per cent.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Rashid Ahmad for Appellant. Gul Muhammad Soomro for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1989. This is an appeal against the order, dated 24‑1‑1989, passed by learned Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the appellant but refused to allow him back benefits.
2. Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, counsel for the appellant, contends that once the learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman he is entitled to all the back benefits as his removal from service has been declared illegal whereas Mr.Gul Muhammad Soomro, appearing for K.T.C. contends that the workman has been reinstated in service only because on the technical ground that the ticketless travellers have not been examined by the K.T.C. He contends that it is not possible for K.T.C. to examine ticketless passengers as no travelling passenger takes the trouble to go to the Enquiry Officer and the Courts to give evidence and undergo all the expenses and trouble. Be that as it may the fact remains that evidence on record being defective the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence on record on which the charges against the workman could stand proved and as such his reinstatement was ordered and no appeal has been preferred against the order of reinstatement.
3. However, on the perusal of the record it appears that neither there is positive proof that during the period the workman remain out of job or he was gainfully employed elsewhere nor is there any evidence or averment on record that he was not so gainfully employed.
4. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, back benefits to the extent of fifty per cent should be awarded to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.E./1440/Lb.S Orders accordingly.