1992 PLP 17 (PLC)
WAQAR AHMAD Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP 17 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | WAQAR AHMAD Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 17 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 17 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 17 (PLC) (WAQAR AHMAD Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zaheer Butt for Ch. Ghulam Qadir for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Ch. Fazal Hussain for Respondent No. 3
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Dilkusha Enterprises Ltd. v. Abdul Rashid and others (1985 S C M R 1882), Muhammad Bashir v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1989 S C M R 1095), Gul Habib v. Federation of Pakistan (1988 P L C 645), Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. (1980 P L C 42) and Sohrab v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways (1981 P L C 862) contended that the petitioner took a specific plea in his statement that he remained out of job and, therefore, he was entitled to back benefits. The contention is devoid of any force. Neither the petitioner raised this plea in his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor he deposed in his statement before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed elseNvhc:re during the period of his suspension. He merely deposed in A his examination in-chief that "I may be reinstated in service with back benefits as I am jobless". The Labour Appellate Tribunal after appreciating the evidence rightly observed that the petitioner did not say that he remained jobless throughout the period he remained out of service and on the basis of such assertion back benefits were rightly disallowed to him. The case law cited by the learned counsel for petitioner is of little avail.
- 3. Be that as it may, Ch. Fazal Hussain, learned counsel for respondent has made a statement at the Bar that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner will be treated on leave of kind due for the period during which he remained out of job. The statement made by Ch. Fazal Hussain, Advocate is indeed laudable. I am also inclined to direct accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Ch. Fazal Hussain for Respondent No. 3 Date of hearing: 7th July, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order, dated 31st August, 1988, passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby decision dated 12-6-19fi of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore for reinstatement of the petitioner was upheld but in so far as it related to back benefits, was disallowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Dilkusha Enterprises Ltd. v. Abdul Rashid and others (1985 S C M R 1882), Muhammad Bashir v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1989 S C M R 1095), Gul Habib v. Federation of Pakistan (1988 P L C 645), Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. (1980 P L C 42) and Sohrab v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways (1981 P L C 862) contended that the petitioner took a specific plea in his statement that he remained out of job and, therefore, he was entitled to back benefits. The contention is devoid of any force. Neither the petitioner raised this plea in his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor he deposed in his statement before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed elseNvhc:re during the period of his suspension. He merely deposed in A his examination in-chief that "I may be reinstated in service with back benefits as I am jobless". The Labour Appellate Tribunal after appreciating the evidence rightly observed that the petitioner did not say that he remained jobless throughout the period he remained out of service and on the basis of such assertion back benefits were rightly disallowed to him. The case law cited by the learned counsel for petitioner is of little avail.
3. Be that as it may, Ch. Fazal Hussain, learned counsel for respondent has made a statement at the Bar that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner will be treated on leave of kind due for the period during which he remained out of job. The statement made by Ch. Fazal Hussain, Advocate is indeed laudable. I am also inclined to direct accordingly. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. H.B.T./W-4/L Order accordingly.