2000 PLP 533 (PLC)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and another Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE through Chairman and another
| Citation | 2000 PLP 533 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and another Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE through Chairman and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXlt'11 of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 533 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXlt'11 of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 533 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 533 (PLC) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and another Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE through Chairman and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1999.
- Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 13-4-1999 passed by Lahore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 19431, 19422, 19428, 19421, 19423 to 19427, 19429 and 19430 of 1996).
S.25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4)(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Work-charged employees
Grievance petition-- Maintainability
Respondents being work-charged employees of Irrigation Department were reinstated in service by Labour Appellate Tribunal-- Contention raised by the petitioner was that the respondents being work charged employees could not be ordered to be reinstated in service-- Petitioner further contended that the grievance petitions filed by the respondents were not maintainable in view of S.1(4)(c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner as the same required consideration.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.‑‑‑We propose to dispose of abovementioned 11 petitions for leave to appeal by a consolidated order as the questions of law and facts involved in, these cases are identical and they also arise from the same impugned judgment.
2. Private respondents in the above petitions were working as Chowkidars, gardners, helpers etc. in the Irrigation Department for a number of years. Their services were terminated by the department describing them as work‑charged employees. The respondents filed grievance petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.) before the Labour Court but their grievance petitions were dismissed on 12‑1‑1994 with the observation that the grievance petitions were not maintainable in law: However, on appeal the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab reversed the judgment of the Labour Court, by judgment, dated 18‑7‑1996 and the private respondents have been directed to be reinstated in service with half back benefits. The Province of Punjab is now seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking leave to appeal, inter alia, contended that private respondents being work‑charged employees, could not be ordered to be reinstated in service. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the grievance petitions filed by the petitioners were not maintainable in view of section 1 (4)(c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑4/S Leave granted.