1990 PLP 597 (PLC)
EASTERN ARMS CO. Versus PLAT and others
| Citation | 1990 PLP 597 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | EASTERN ARMS CO. Versus PLAT and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 597 (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 1990 PLP 597 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 597 (PLC) (EASTERN ARMS CO. Versus PLAT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Nasrullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Rana Abdul Hamid Khan for Respondents Nos.3 to 8.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 1989.
- 5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 8 frankly conceded that under section 51 of the I.R.O. while granting back benefits the Courts are required to exclude the income if any, earned by the dismissed employee during the period of his dismissal i.e. from date of dismissal to reinstatement but argued that in fact the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 did not earn income during the said period. The petitioner raised a plea of fact that respondents Nos. 3 to 8 earned income during the period of their dismissal and produced evidence also. This was denied by the said respondents. It was incumbent upon the respondents to have recorded express finding whether the said plea was established or not and if established as to how much income was earned by them which was to be excluded from the back benefits to be granted to them. The learned Courts below thus have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned orders dated 8‑2‑1988 and 13‑4‑1988, therefore, suffer from an acute illegality due to which they have been rendered as without lawful authority. The writ petition is accepted. The orders dated 8‑2‑1988 and 13‑4‑1988 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed. The result is that the application moved by respondents Nos. 3 to 8 under section 51 of the I.R.O. for recovery of back benefits shall be deemed to be pending and it shall be decided afresh after recording, finding whether the said respondents earned income during the period they remained out of service and if so as to how much and thereafter determine the quantum of back benefits to be granted to them. The case shall be decided on the evidence already recorded. The case is remanded to respondent No.2 for this purpose. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.51‑‑‑Recovery of back benefits‑‑‑Failure of lower Courts to record finding on a plea of fact‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Plea of fact was raised by employer by adducing evidence that reinstated workmen having been earning income during period of their dismissal, such earning should be excluded from back benefits to be granted to workmen‑‑‑Plea of employer was denied by workmen, but Courts below had not recorded any finding as to whether workmen did earn any income during the said period‑‑‑Such plea of fact made it incumbent upon Courts below to have recorded extra finding whether said plea was established or not and if established as to how much was earned by them which was to be excluded from back benefits to be granted to them‑‑‑Courts below by not doing so had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them which had resulted in miscarriage of justice‑‑‑Orders of Courts below suffering from acute illegality were quashed and case remanded for decision afresh after recording express finding.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and
2. Rana Abdul Hamid Khan for Respondents Nos.3 to
8. Date of hearing: 12th April, 1989. This judgment shall also dispose of Writ Petition No.3202 of 1988 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both of them.
2. In this Constitutional petition order dated 8‑2‑1988 passed by respondent No.2 accepting the application of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the order dated 13‑4‑1988 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the said order of respondent No.1 have been challenged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence was produced before respondent No.2 to establish that the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 have been earning income through other sources during the period from their dismissal from service to their reinstatement therefore, in determining the back benefits to be granted to them, the said earnings were to be excluded.
4. The grievance highlighted through this writ petition is that the Courts below have not recorded any finding as to whether respondents Nos. 3 to 8 did earn any income during the said period.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 8 frankly conceded that under section 51 of the I.R.O. while granting back benefits the Courts are required to exclude the income if any, earned by the dismissed employee during the period of his dismissal i.e. from date of dismissal to reinstatement but argued that in fact the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 did not earn income during the said period. The petitioner raised a plea of fact that respondents Nos. 3 to 8 earned income during the period of their dismissal and produced evidence also. This was denied by the said respondents. It was incumbent upon the respondents to have recorded express finding whether the said plea was established or not and if established as to how much income was earned by them which was to be excluded from the back benefits to be granted to them. The learned Courts below thus have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned orders dated 8‑2‑1988 and 13‑4‑1988, therefore, suffer from an acute illegality due to which they have been rendered as without lawful authority. The writ petition is accepted. The orders dated 8‑2‑1988 and 13‑4‑1988 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed. The result is that the application moved by respondents Nos. 3 to 8 under section 51 of the I.R.O. for recovery of back benefits shall be deemed to be pending and it shall be decided afresh after recording, finding whether the said respondents earned income during the period they remained out of service and if so as to how much and thereafter determine the quantum of back benefits to be granted to them. The case shall be decided on the evidence already recorded. The case is remanded to respondent No.2 for this purpose. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./E‑13/L