1983 PLP 277 (PLC)
SANAULLAH Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA (E), GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1983 PLP 277 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labor Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SANAULLAH Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA (E), GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 277 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 277 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labor Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1983 PLP 277 (PLC) (SANAULLAH Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA (E), GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Hamid Talib for Appellant.
- Date of hearing ‑ 1st September, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Re‑instetement‑Back benefits‑Re‑instate ment awarded on technical groan ds‑Back benefits, held, rightly refused by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. GA‑446 of 1982/Pb., decided on 8th September, 1982. ‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Re‑instetement‑Back benefits‑Re‑instate ment awarded on technical groan ds‑Back benefits, held, rightly refused by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A &
38. Rana Abdul Hamid Talib for Appellant. Date of hearing ‑ 1st September, 1982. In this appeal the decision dated 1‑7‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab, Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The order of dismissal was set aside and the appellant was directed other re‑instated in service for the reason that although the appointing authority was respondent No. 1, yet the notice which was deemed to be equivalent to charge‑sheet was sent by respondent No, 2, that no opportu nity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant, nor he was allowed to give defence Obviously the order of re‑instatement was made on technical grounds as proper enquiry was not held. The reason given by the learned lower Court for disallowing back benefits is that the appellant had failed to inform the respondent regarding his whereabouts. Since on, technical grounds the appellant was re‑instated, the lower court was justified in not allowing back benefits to the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.