1994 PLP 783 (PLC)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION WORKSHOP, MUGHALPURA DIVISION, MUGHALPURA, LAHORE Versus JAMSHED IQBAL MIRZA and 2 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP 783 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION WORKSHOP, MUGHALPURA DIVISION, MUGHALPURA, LAHORE Versus JAMSHED IQBAL MIRZA and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 783 (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 1994 PLP 783 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 783 (PLC) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION WORKSHOP, MUGHALPURA DIVISION, MUGHALPURA, LAHORE Versus JAMSHED IQBAL MIRZA and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Qadir, Addl. A.‑G. and Abdul Maajid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Zaman Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑6‑1992 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 6475 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Reinstatement of an industrial worker, who was employed on purely temporary basis‑‑‑All the forums below including High Court maintaining his (worker's) reinstatement in service‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider that if service of an industrial worker appointed on temporary basis was terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof, even then right to service could not be deemed to be guaranteed under law; and only relief, available to such worker was one month's pay and not reinstatement with back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Reinstatement of an industrial worker, who was employed on purely temporary basis‑‑‑All the forums below including High Court maintaining his (worker's) reinstatement in service‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider that if service of an industrial worker appointed on temporary basis was terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof, even then right to service could not be deemed to be guaranteed under law; and only relief, available to such worker was one month's pay and not reinstatement with back benefits. Irfan Qadir, Addl. A.‑G. and Abdul Maajid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Zaman Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1993. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 17‑6‑1992 whereby his writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 4‑6‑1991 reinstating the respondent with all back benefits and that of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 20‑7‑1991 dismissing the appeal against the said order, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that respondent No. 1 was employed as Turner on work‑charged basis on 7‑6‑1987 in Irrigation Workshop Division, Moghalpura on purely temporary basis. The service was terminable at any time without notice or without assigning any reason. Due to less work‑load his services were terminated vide Order dated 26‑6‑1988 as no more required. He filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Labour Court, which was dismissed on 27‑11‑1990. He challenged the said order in appeal before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed. The case was remanded for fresh decision vide judgment dated 20‑2‑1991. In the second round the Labour Court allowed the grievance petition on 4‑6‑1991. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, which was dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on 20‑7‑1991. A writ petition led by the petitioner also failed vide order, dated 17‑8‑1992.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was employed on purely temporary basis and his service was terminable at any time without assigning any reason. He submits that if it be conceded that the respondent's service was terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof as held by the Labour Appellate Tribunal even then the right to service could not be said to be guaranteed under the law and the only relief which he could get was one month's pay and not reinstatement with back benefits. The contention requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. A.A./E‑41/S Leave granted.