1986 PLP 687 (PLC(CS))
NASRA NASEEM Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
| Citation | 1986 PLP 687 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | NASRA NASEEM Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 687 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 687 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 687 (PLC(CS)) (NASRA NASEEM Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal not passing any order with regard to back benefits‑‑Question to be decided by employer and not by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal not passing any order with regard to back benefits‑‑Question to be decided by employer and not by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1985. The order, dated 28‑9‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act as appellate authority is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 7‑6‑1981. Her grievance petition was dismissed by the learned lower Court but her appeal was accepted. She was directed to be re‑instated in service. No order as to back benefits was passed. The petitioner brought a petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and then appeal under section 17 without success. The ground on which the petitioner failed is that this Tribunal did not allow her back benefits. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner did not claim back benefits but wages on the ground that she had been going on duty but was not allowed to work. The argument is devoid of force. This is true that no decision was recorded whether she was or was not entitled to back benefits but the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act could grant relief if back benefits had been allowed by this Tribunal and had not been paid by the respondent. Railway authorities have to decide if on re‑instatement the employee is or is not entitled to back benefits. The petitioner, therefore, instead of applying under section 15, should have asked her employer to decide the question of he entitlement to back benefits. Anyhow so far as her petition given under, section 15 and appeal under section 17 are concerned, they were rightly dismissed.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. A. E. Revision dismissed.