1997 PLP 233 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SIJAFI KHAN and 17 others Versus M/s. PAK SUZUKI MOTORS LTD, KARACHI
| Citation | 1997 PLP 233 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIJAFI KHAN and 17 others Versus M/s. PAK SUZUKI MOTORS LTD, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI1I of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 233 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI1I of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 233 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 233 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SIJAFI KHAN and 17 others Versus M/s. PAK SUZUKI MOTORS LTD, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 38(3‑a) & 51‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Claim for‑‑‑Employees who were re instated in service with back benefits and had recovered back benefits, had claimed that back benefits awarded to them were insufficient as they did not include other benefits apart from wages such as conveyance allowance, house rent, attendance allowance, washing allowance and medical allowance‑ Employees in their application claimed recovery of such allowances as arrears of land revenue which claim was dismissed by Labour Court‑‑‑Claims of employees about allowances being vague and indefinite could not be ascertained in terms of money, and thus claim of employees was rightly dismissed by Labour Court which could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of Tribunal. Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 13th March, 1996. Heard Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Representative for the applicants/informants. 2, A grievance petition for reinstatement and back benefits was filed before the Labour Court. This petition was allowed and reinstatement with back benefits was ordered. The management of Pak Suzuki Motors preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied they filed A Constitution petition in the High Court which was later on withdrawn. The back benefits were recovered from the High Court. At that time workmen claimed that the back benefits were insufficient as they did not include other benefits apart from wages such as Conveyance Allowance, House Rent, Attendance Allowance, Washing Allowance and Medical Allowance. So, they filed an application under section 51 of the I.R.O. before another Labour Court claiming these benefits. The Labour Court dismissed the claim for recovery as Arrears of Land Revenue. Against that order a Revision Application under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O., 1969, has been preferred in this Court.
3. Under section 51 for an amount to be recovered as Arrears of Land Revenue two conditions are mentioned: (i) if upon an application the Labour Court so direct; and (ii) if the amount of benefits is capable of being computed in terms of money. In this case there is no direction from the Labour Court for recovery of the amount as Arrears of Land Revenue and the various claims of the workmen are vague and indefinite so that they cannot be ascertained in terms of money.
4. I can, therefore, see no reason for holding the order of the Lower Court to be incorrect, illegal or improper. I, accordingly, find no ground for interference in a Revision Application against the order of the lower Court.
5. The application is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./76/Lb.S Revision petition dismissed.