2009 PLP 95 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus Messrs PHARMATEC (PAKISTAN) LTD. through Factory Manager
| Citation | 2009 PLP 95 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Salman Ansari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus Messrs PHARMATEC (PAKISTAN) LTD. through Factory Manager |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 95 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 95 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Salman Ansari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 95 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus Messrs PHARMATEC (PAKISTAN) LTD. through Factory Manager). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahanshah Hussain for Appellant.
- Shahid Hussain Bajwa for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 48 & 62
Entitlement of back benefits
Appellant who was dismissed from service, was reinstated in service, but was not granted back-benefits
Inquiry against appellant was conducted and his dismissal from service was ordered
Reinstatement in the impugned order which was not conditional, nor any further departmental inquiry was to be conducted--Labour Court, in circumstances, was not justified in refusing to reinstate the appellant to which he was entitled from the date of his reinstatement. National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1993 SCMR 105 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SALMAN ANSARI, J.
This appeal arises out of the order, dated 9-5-2005 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.111 at Karachi, whereby the prayer of the applicant Muhammad Yousuf was allowed to the extent of his reinstatement in the respondent-factory Messrs Pharmatec (Pakistan) Limited, but not granted to the extent of his back benefits which according to the order was as under:
"The respondent-Company is required to reinstate the applicant and provide him job without further loss of time. The respondents company further may also consider sympathetically on humanitarian ground so far the back-benefits claimed by the applicant are concerned. In my humble view above decision will meet the ends of justice. The respondent is directed to comply with the orders of this Court within one month of this order." Hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1993 SCMR 105 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) wherein it was held:
"Back-benefits. Where order of dismissal or removal had been set aside conditionally, back-benefits have to be paid. Where, however, reinstatement was conditional and a departmental enquiry could still be made, then such entitlement could be withheld, till the final determination with regard to employee's conduct." Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the inquiry against the appellant was conducted and his dismissal from service was ordered and the reinstatement in the impugned order is not conditional nor any further departmental inquiry was to be conducted hence, the Labour Court No.III at Karachi, had erred in not allowing the reinstatement of the applicant with back-benefits. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondents have challenged the reinstatement of the appellant in Appeal No.77 of 2005 and the order was liable to be set aside and even otherwise, the appellant was not entitled to any back-benefits after his dismissal from service. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, in this case placing reliance upon the case-law cited (supra) I find the same to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case hence, I, allow the appeal and order that the appellant is entitled to the back-benefits from the date of his reinstatement. Ordered accordingly. H.B.T./M-201/K Appeal allowed.