1988 PLP 786 (PLC(CS))
FACTORY MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, OKARA TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., OKARA Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ
| Citation | 1988 PLP 786 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FACTORY MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, OKARA TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., OKARA Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 786 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 786 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1988 PLP 786 (PLC(CS)) (FACTORY MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, OKARA TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., OKARA Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Awan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.0.13‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Retrenchment‑‑Last come first go principle must be followed‑ Termination purportedly due to reason of becoming surplus‑‑Workman deposing before Labour Court that his KHATA was not closed and his juniors were retained in service‑‑No evidence in rebuttal produced‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, was justified in accepting grievance petition against termination order.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.0.13‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Retrenchment‑‑Last come first go principle must be followed‑ Termination purportedly due to reason of becoming surplus‑‑Workman deposing before Labour Court that his KHATA was not closed and his juniors were retained in service‑‑No evidence in rebuttal produced‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, was justified in accepting grievance petition against termination order. Ali Ahmad Awan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1988 The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 31‑1‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition of the respondent has been accepted and he, has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was working as Labour Record Clerk and on the ground of being surplus his services were terminated vide order dated 19‑7‑1986. The respondent challenged the order on two grounds namely that there was no justification for treating him as surplus, inasmuch as the duties which he used to perform were being taken from other workers and that rule of 'last come first go' was not observed. The respondent while appearing as his own witness deposed that Muhammad Islam and Qurban Hussain, clerks, were junior to him but they were still working in the section and he made reference to documents marked 'B' and 'C', in this respect. He also deposed that his khata was not closed and it was still functioning. No evidence in rebuttal oral or documentary was produced by the appellant.
3. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that since appellant No.l had no letter of authority in his favour from appellant No.2, the former could not close the case of the latter. This is true but appellant No.2 was being proceeded ex parte and before the final decision ex parte proceedings were not got set aside. The statement of appellant No.2 to close, the case of appellant No. 1 also, therefore, is .immaterial. The decision against appellant No.l was ex parte. Since no evidence to rebut the statement on oath of the respondent was produced, the learned lower Court was justified in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent.
4. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent had deposed in his statement that he was jobless since the time of termination of his services, so back benefits were rightly allowed to the respondent.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./532/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.