1974 PLP 287 (PLC)
MESSRS S. MOHAMMAD DIN TANNERY, KARACHI Versus Sh. ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1974 PLP 287 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan. Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MESSRS S. MOHAMMAD DIN TANNERY, KARACHI Versus Sh. ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1974 PLP 287 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1974 PLP 287 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Inamullah Khan. Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1974 PLP 287 (PLC) (MESSRS S. MOHAMMAD DIN TANNERY, KARACHI Versus Sh. ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Itrat Puri for Appellant
- Wasi Ahmad for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearings 14th May 1973
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Re‑instatement ‑ Back benefits ‑ Workman alleged to have resigned‑Fact of resignation not upheld and Court awarding re‑instatement with full back wages‑Matter remaining pending before Court for over one year‑Employer, in circumstances, held, should not be penalized to pay full back wages‑Workman allowed compensation for six months' wages only.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. It, Karachi, dated tad April 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered the respondent to be re‑Instated with full back benefits. The case of the parties is a simple one. The appellant's case was that the respondent had resigned on the December 1971, while the contention of the respondent war that he had not resigned. The learned Labour Court for very good reasons came to the conclusion that the respondent had not resigned. The question, however is as to whether under the circumstances of the present case, the respondent should have been given the whole of back benefits. The respondent, as I have already mentioned, resigned on 11th December 1971. He made an application before the Labour Court on 15th February 1972. The impugned order was passed on 2nd April 1973. It took over a year for a simple case like this to be disposed of. This was no doubt due to the fact that there are a number of cases pending before the Labour Court. A simple case like this should not have taken more than 4 to 5 months. In these circumstances I, think that the appellant should not be penalized to pay full back benefits from the time that the respondent is said to have resigned, t e. 11 ‑12‑1971. I would modify the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to this extent only that the appellant will be liable to pay six months wages and other benefits to the respondent.