1996 PLP 177 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ and 71 others Versus UNITED BANK LTD through Zonal Head,
| Citation | 1996 PLP 177 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ and 71 others Versus UNITED BANK LTD through Zonal Head, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 177 (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 1996 PLP 177 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 177 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ and 71 others Versus UNITED BANK LTD through Zonal Head,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Moosa Leghari for Appellants.
- Abul Inam for Respondents.
- Ch. Nastier Ahmed for Respondents (in 31 appeals alongwith Abul Inam).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 51-Back benefits
Grant of back benefits was not mandatory requirement of the order of re-instatement, but was to be considered separately and it was discretion of Court to judge what back benefits if any could or could not be granted to employees who were re instated by Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 51‑Back benefits‑‑‑Grant of‑‑‑Grant of back benefits was not mandatory requirement of the order of re‑instatement, but was to be considered separately and it was discretion of Court to judge what back benefits if any could or could not be granted to employees who were re instated by Court. Moosa Leghari for Appellants. Abul Inam for Respondents. Ch. Nastier Ahmed for Respondents (in 31 appeals alongwith Abul Inam). These are 72 appeals by the workers of United Bank Limited, that while re‑instating them in service the Labour Court did not grant them the back benefits.
2. In the grievance petition a formal claim was not made by the workers for back benefits but only they had made a statement in their Affidavits that they were jobless. On the other hand the Bank had not cross‑examined the workers on the point of being jobless. The learned Labour Court held that since the workers are themselves to be blamed for not obtaining written orders of appointment and they did not agitate for a number of years to receive their orders, the blame lies on them also and they are not therefore entitled to any back benefits.
3. The grant of back benefits is not mandatory requirement of the order of re‑instatement. It is to be considered separately and it is discretion of Court to judge what back benefits if any may or may not be granted. In these cases the responsibility lay with the workers to obtain their orders of appointment in writing and they were indifferent to make efforts to obtain such orders,
4. Under the circumstances no back benefits were ordered by the lower Court. I accordingly find no reason for interference. The appeals are dismissed. H.B.T./2543/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.