1995 PLP 585 (PLC)
SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, LAHORE Versus ZAWAR AHMAD KHAN
| Citation | 1995 PLP 585 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab, |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, LAHORE Versus ZAWAR AHMAD KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 585 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 585 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab, bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 585 (PLC) (SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, LAHORE Versus ZAWAR AHMAD KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Mahmood for Appellant.
- Malik Muhammad Asghar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Petitioner workman asserting on oath that he remained jobless after termination of service‑‑‑Onus to prove otherwise would shift to employer‑‑‑Workman in cross‑examination stating that he got some work for sometime and occasionally remained without any work‑‑‑No proof by employer that workman remained employed and what were his earnings‑‑‑Simply getting an answer from workman in cross- examination that for sometime he got work, held, not sufficient for non payment of back benefits‑‑‑Back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Petitioner workman asserting on oath that he remained jobless after termination of service‑‑‑Onus to prove otherwise would shift to employer‑‑‑Workman in cross‑examination stating that he got some work for sometime and occasionally remained without any work‑‑‑No proof by employer that workman remained employed and what were his earnings‑‑‑Simply getting an answer from workman in cross- examination that for sometime he got work, held, not sufficient for non payment of back benefits‑‑‑Back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by appellate Tribunal. Rana Mahmood for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986. The decision dated 1.2‑4‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged to the extent it allowed back benefits to the respondent.
2. The respondent asserted that he has remained jobless. In cross‑examination, however, he stated that he got some work for sometime and at sometime he remained without any work. No further question was put to him for how long he got work and what he earned. After the respondent had asserted on oath that he has remained jobless, the onus shifted upon the appellant to get divulged from the respondent that he throughout the period of his dismissal, remained employed or to disclose what he had actually earned. By producing evidence also it could be proved what the respondent had actually earned. It was not difficult for the appellant to do so. When the respondent was in the witness‑box, he could be inquired where he had been working and then inquiry could have been made from his such employer about the period of employment and what actually the respondent had earned. Simply getting an answer from the respondent that sometime he got some work, the appellant did not make out a case of non‑payment of back benefits. The cross‑examination of the respondent shows that he casually got some work which is to be ignored. Thus, the respondent was rightly allowed back benefits by the learned lower Court.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./199/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.