1996 PLP 485 (PLC)
PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL through General Manager and 2 others Versus CHAIRMAN, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL N -W F P', PESHAWAR and 2 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP 485 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk and Qazi Ehsan Ullah Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL through General Manager and 2 others Versus CHAIRMAN, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL N -W F P', PESHAWAR and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 485 (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 1996 PLP 485 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk and Qazi Ehsan Ullah Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 485 (PLC) (PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL through General Manager and 2 others Versus CHAIRMAN, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL N -W F P', PESHAWAR and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Waheed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 35
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art: 199
Constitutional petition
Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration enquiry report as well as evidence produced by parties, concluded that accusation of employee on basis of which he was dismissed from service, could not sustain
Employer had not been able to point out that standard of proof applied by Labour Court-was not one permissible under law
Labour Court was empowered to evaluate evidence against dismissed employee in order to determine as to whether it was sufficient to sustain allegation against employee
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction refused to re evaluate evidence and to give finding on facts contrary to concurrent finding of Courts below and also refused to interfere in the award of back benefits to employee by the Labour Courts since employee had specifically stated that he remained jobless during the relevant period and the employer had failed to rebut that claim. Punjab Road Transport Board v. Fazle Ellahi, PLD 1376 Lah.1414 and Muhammad Bashir v. PLAT 1991 SCMR 2087 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 35‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art: 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑‑Award of back benefits‑‑‑Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration enquiry report as well as evidence produced by parties, concluded that accusation of employee on basis of which he was dismissed from service, could not sustain‑‑‑Employer had not been able to point out that standard of proof applied by Labour Court‑was not one permissible under law‑‑‑Labour Court was empowered to evaluate evidence against dismissed employee in order to determine as to whether it was sufficient to sustain allegation against employee‑‑‑High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction refused to re evaluate evidence and to give finding on facts contrary to concurrent finding of Courts below and also refused to interfere in the award of back benefits to employee by the Labour Courts since employee had specifically stated that he remained jobless during the relevant period and the employer had failed to rebut that claim. Punjab Road Transport Board v. Fazle Ellahi, PLD 1376 Lah.1414 and Muhammad Bashir v. PLAT 1991 SCMR 2087 ref. Abdul Waheed for Petitioner. The second argument is also without force. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Bashir ibid in fact does not support his case. The Supreme Court had held that back benefits do not automatically follow the order of reinstatement when the order of removal or dismissal has been set aside but in order to succeed the workman must assert, at least orally, that he yeas not gainfully employed elsewhere during the interregnum and thereafter the onus would shift to the employer to show that he was so gainfully employed. In the statement of respondent No. 1 made before the Labour Court it has been specifically alleged at the end of his examination in‑chief: "I am jobless since my dismissal and the termination order being illegal may be set aside and I may be re‑instated with all back benefits and wages". No evidence to contradict the assertion of respondent No.3 that he remained unemployed after dismissal has been produced by the petitioner‑employers. For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to dismiss this writ petition in limine. H.B.T./1932/P Petition dismissed.