1998 PLP 136 (PLC)
through Deputy General Manager Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
| Citation | 1998 PLP 136 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | through Deputy General Manager Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 136 (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 1998 PLP 136 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 136 (PLC) (through Deputy General Manager Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hamid for Appellants.
- Gohar Iqbal for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 51
Back benefits
Back benefits allowed to employee by Labour Court were challenged by employer alleging that employee in his cross-examination had himself admitted that he got work for 2 or 3 days in a week and he could earn just Rs.500 to feed his family
Held, getting work occasionally for 2 or 3 days would not deprive employee of the back benefits allowed to him.
Judgment & Decree
S. 51
Back benefits
Back benefits allowed to employee by Labour Court were challenged by employer alleging that employee in his cross-examination had himself admitted that he got work for 2 or 3 days in a week and he could earn just Rs.500 to feed his family
Held, getting work occasionally for 2 or 3 days would not deprive employee of the back benefits allowed to him. Zahid Hamid for Appellants. Gohar Iqbal for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1997. This appeal arises from the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Ramzan, an employee of the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. Muhammad Ramzan had been appointed as a technician in the Steel Mills in 1977. While he was posted at Maikli he fell ill from 28-10-1991 to 5-11-1991. This was regarded as absence for more than 10 days without leave and the respondent was charge-sheeted for misconduct under Order 15(3)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. During the enquiry respondent produced Medical Certificate of illness from 28-10-1991 to 5-11-1991. But since he was absent without leave he was found guilty and dismissed from service. The learned Labour Court, however, found that the dismissal order was not justified and he accordingly directed the reinstatement of the respondent upto 8-10-1994 on which date he attained the age of 60 years.
3. Mr. Zahid Hamid for the Steel Mills has argued that the intimation of illness was not given by the respondent in time. He was, therefore, marked absent and being absent for more than 10 days made him liable for the punishment. He does not deny that the absence was on account of illness but the respondent having been posted at Maikli away from Karachi, he could not send the intimation of illness and the Medical Certificate in time. Mr. Zahid Hamid has then argued that the respondent in cross-examination admitted that occasionally he got work for 2 or 3 days in a week and he could earn just Rs.500 to feed his wife and five children. It was not the case of the Steel Mills that during the period the respondent remained out of job but was gainfully employed. Getting work occasionally for 2 or 3 days will not deprive the respondent of the back benefits allowed to him. The respondent has already been retired and I can see no substance in this appeal filed against the old man.
4. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./229/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.