1989 PLP 685 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ
| Citation | 1989 PLP 685 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 685 (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 1989 PLP 685 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 685 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saifullah Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑SS.25‑A, 36, 38(3)‑‑Evidence‑‑Grievance petition seeking reinstatement‑ Petitioner's status disputed‑‑Plea that employee was merely employed from time to time temporarily‑‑Case of employer closed as no evidence brought on fixed date‑‑Application made on next date for additional evidence to tender some documents disallowed and petitioner treated as a permanent workman and petition accepted awarding re‑instatement with back benefits‑‑Decision of Labour Court set aside in appeal and case remanded allowing employer to produce additional documentary evidence. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No.LHR‑585 of 1988, decided on 20th December, 1988. ‑‑‑SS.25‑A, 36, 38(3)‑‑Evidence‑‑Grievance petition seeking reinstatement‑ Petitioner's status disputed‑‑Plea that employee was merely employed from time to time temporarily‑‑Case of employer closed as no evidence brought on fixed date‑‑Application made on next date for additional evidence to tender some documents disallowed and petitioner treated as a permanent workman and petition accepted awarding re‑instatement with back benefits‑‑Decision of Labour Court set aside in appeal and case remanded allowing employer to produce additional documentary evidence. Saifullah Khan for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 23‑10‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits from 1‑1‑1988.
2. The case of the appellant was closed on 8‑6‑1988 as evidence had not been brought. On the next date i.e. 22-6-1988 an application for additional evidence to tender some documents in evidence was moved but the same was disallowed on 22-9-1988. The case of the appellant is that the respondent is not a permanent gangman but had been employed from time to time temporarily as petroller, but by the impugned decision he has been declared as permanent and reinstated in service with back benefits accruing from 1‑1‑1988. If in reality the respondents is not a permanent employee the appellant has very much suffered due to the impugned decision which has been passed without there being any evidence on the record produced by the appellant. Since the appellant maintains the service record, every relevant document is with it and only the said record could show whether the respondent was a permanent or temporary employee. At least the respondent request for additional evidence should have been granted by the learned lower court compensating the respondent with imposition of costs upon the appellant. If it had been done, the respondent would have been paid for the inconvenience and the appellant saved from accepting a temporary man as it its permanent employee. A.E./618/Lb.P Appeal accepted.