1991 PLP 726 (PLC(CS))
UBAIDULLAH Versus IOBAL HUSSAIN and another
| Citation | 1991 PLP 726 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | UBAIDULLAH Versus IOBAL HUSSAIN and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 726 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 726 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 726 (PLC(CS)) (UBAIDULLAH Versus IOBAL HUSSAIN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 17th July, 1990.
- Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate alongwith the applicant present.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Petitioner who was allowed to resume service with back benefits was not paid back benefits which were subject to holding of inquiry by employers‑‑‑Employers stating that they would not hold inquiry and were prepared to pay back benefits but the amount had not been determined‑‑ Employers were directed to calculate and make payment with observations that in case of dispute with regard to determination of amount either of parties was at liberty to move Labour Court for determination of amount. Ali Amjad for Applicant. Respondents in person.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 17th July, 1990. Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate alongwith the applicant present.
2. Both the respondents/contemners also present. 3, The operative part of the order reads as under:-- "In view of the above discussions I would set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court and order that the appellant be allowed to resume his duties subject to the condition that the payment of back benefits, if any, to him and his further retention in service would depend upon the result of the enquiry which may be held against him by the respondents." Admittedly the applicant has been allowed to resume service but his grievance is that he is not being paid the salary and furthermore neither enquiry has been held against him nor he is paid the back benefits. The respondents, however, contend that the applicant is not accepting his salary as he wants to fix his own amount of salary. However if his salary is withheld it is the matter to be taken to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act but it does not amount to Contempt of Court.
4. With regard to the holding of enquiry the respondents submit that they do not want to hold enquiry and are prepared to pay back benefits but the amount has not been determined. Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the applicant, suggests let the respondents offer the amount and if the applicant is not agreeable then any of the parties may move the Labour Court for determination p of amount under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969. The respondents are directed to calculate and offer the amount of back benefits to the appellant/applicant or his counsel within one month and if there is any dispute with regard to determination of amount either of the parties may move the Labour Court for determination of amount. Presently I find no ground for taking any action under Contempt of Court Act. The application is disposed of accordingly. M.Y.H./1722/Lb. S Order accordingly.