1989 PLP 746 (PLC(CS))
CENTRE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD
| Citation | 1989 PLP 746 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CENTRE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 746 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 746 (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: 1989 PLP 746 (PLC(CS)) (CENTRE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Farooq Qureshi for Appellants.
- Habib Ullah for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Termination of service according to terms and conditions of employment‑ Terms and conditions not notified in official gazette‑‑Workman cannot be presumed to be aware of such terms and conditions‑‑No evidence that workman was apprised of such terms and conditions but possibility of ‑such information to workman also not totally excluded‑‑Held: termination order, was rightly set aside by Labour Court and reinstatement being made on benefit of doubt to workman, he was not entitled to back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi for Appellants. Habib Ullah for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 7‑6‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as driver on 18‑2‑1977. His services were terminated on 25‑11‑1981 on the ground that he had been appointed on ad hoc basis.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that according to term No. 2 of the Terms and Conditions contained in Exh.R‑1 the services of the respondent could be terminated on 14 days notice and since it was done, the order was legal and could not be set aside. According to rule 4(3)(c) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, he was to be governed by the terms and conditions of service, but question arises whether he was apprised of the terms and conditions of service under which he was employed. Exh.R‑1 does not show that it was brought to the notice of the respondent, nor any evidence was produced to this effect. Since the terms and conditions of service contained in Exh.R‑1 were not notified in the official Gazette, there is no presumption that the respondent was aware of them. This is a question of fact and could be proved by some evidence which is wanting. In these circumstances, the respondent has been rightly directed to be reinstated in service. 4.Possibility cannot be excluded that the terms and conditions of service may have been informed to the respondent, therefore, he gets only a benefit of doubt and thus in the circumstances, he is not entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits. A.E./597/Lb. P Appeal partly accepted.