1994 PLP 784 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI through Chairman and 2 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP 784 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI through Chairman and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 784 (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 1994 PLP 784 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 784 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI through Chairman and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Yaqoob for Respondent No. 3.
- MAMOON KAZI, J.‑‑‑This petition was disposed of by judgment dated 7‑5‑1992 alongwith C.P. No. D‑335/1990. The order passed by the Tribunal impugned in this petition was modified to the extent that the petitioner was held to be entitled to full back benefits. Hereafter controversy has been going on as to the computation of back benefits in pursuance of the said judgment of this Court. The respondent No. 3 did calculate the back benefits to which, according to them, the petitioner was entitled but the petitioner demands much more than what was calculated as his back benefits by the said respondents. An application was also filed in this Court for filing action against the respondent for committing contempt of Court, as it was alleged that the said respondent had failed to calculate back benefits in accordance with the judgment of this Court, the matter was referred to Nazir for calculation of back benefits but once again the different reports submitted by the Nazir in this regard show that no agreement would be reached between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. By order dated 2‑12‑1993 one Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate was also appointed as Commisioner by the Court to settle the controversy between the parties but to no result. Today our attention has been invited by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, to section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which indicates that where a workman is entitled to receive any benefit from the employer which can be calculated in terms of money, the amount shall be determined by the Labour Court and recovered in the manner provided in subsection (1) of the said section. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has also referred to an earlier judgment given by one of us (Mamoon Kazi, J.) in the case of Ghulam Mustafa v. Vth Sindh Labour Court and another reported in 1987 PLC 601. While referring to section 51 of the said Ordinance, it has been observed in the said case that the Labour Court has been assigned a dual function under the said section; first, to determine the amount awarded by way of back benefits such amount is capable of being computed in terms of money and secondly, to order its recovery from the employer as provided for in subsection (1) of section 51. In view of the circumstances of the case and in order to cut short the controversy, we refer the matter in regard to calculation of back benefits of the petitioner to the learned Labour Court which shall dispose of the matter as provided in section 51 of the said Ordinance. All the applications filed by the petitioner or the respondent as the case may be stand disposed of in terms of this Order. The matter shall be decided by the Labour Court expeditiously as possible when the parties appear before it after receiving notice from the Labour Court.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 51‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Calculation and recovery of Labour Court has been assigned dual function first to determine amount awarded by way of back benefits and then to order its recovery from employer‑‑‑Where there was controversy with regard to computation of back benefits awarded to employee, case was referred to Labour Court for determination of amount of awarded back benefits. Ghulam Mustafa v. Vth Sindh Labour Court and another 1987 PLC 601 ref. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 51‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Calculation and recovery of Labour Court has been assigned dual function first to determine amount awarded by way of back benefits and then to order its recovery from employer‑‑‑Where there was controversy with regard to computation of back benefits awarded to employee, case was referred to Labour Court for determination of amount of awarded back benefits. Ghulam Mustafa v. Vth Sindh Labour Court and another 1987 PLC 601 ref. Petitioner in person. S.M. Yaqoob for Respondent No.
3. MAMOON KAZI, J.‑‑‑This petition was disposed of by judgment dated 7‑5‑1992 alongwith C.P. No. D‑335/1990. The order passed by the Tribunal impugned in this petition was modified to the extent that the petitioner was held to be entitled to full back benefits. Hereafter controversy has been going on as to the computation of back benefits in pursuance of the said judgment of this Court. The respondent No. 3 did calculate the back benefits to which, according to them, the petitioner was entitled but the petitioner demands much more than what was calculated as his back benefits by the said respondents. An application was also filed in this Court for filing action against the respondent for committing contempt of Court, as it was alleged that the said respondent had failed to calculate back benefits in accordance with the judgment of this Court, the matter was referred to Nazir for calculation of back benefits but once again the different reports submitted by the Nazir in this regard show that no agreement would be reached between the petitioner and respondent No.
3. By order dated 2‑12‑1993 one Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate was also appointed as Commisioner by the Court to settle the controversy between the parties but to no result. Today our attention has been invited by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, to section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which indicates that where a workman is entitled to receive any benefit from the employer which can be calculated in terms of money, the amount shall be determined by the Labour Court and recovered in the manner provided in subsection (1) of the said section. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has also referred to an earlier judgment given by one of us (Mamoon Kazi, J.) in the case of Ghulam Mustafa v. Vth Sindh Labour Court and another reported in 1987 PLC
601. While referring to section 51 of the said Ordinance, it has been observed in the said case that the Labour Court has been assigned a dual function under the said section; first, to determine the amount awarded by way of back benefits such amount is capable of being computed in terms of money and secondly, to order its recovery from the employer as provided for in subsection (1) of section
51. In view of the circumstances of the case and in order to cut short the controversy, we refer the matter in regard to calculation of back benefits of the petitioner to the learned Labour Court which shall dispose of the matter as provided in section 51 of the said Ordinance. All the applications filed by the petitioner or the respondent as the case may be stand disposed of in terms of this Order. The matter shall be decided by the Labour Court expeditiously as possible when the parties appear before it after receiving notice from the Labour Court. H.B.T./M‑1980/K Order accordingly.