1977 PLP 285 (PLC)
MESSRS PARAMOUNT SILK MILLS, KARACHI Versus ABDUL MAJEED
| Citation | 1977 PLP 285 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MESSRS PARAMOUNT SILK MILLS, KARACHI Versus ABDUL MAJEED |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 285 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 285 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 285 (PLC) (MESSRS PARAMOUNT SILK MILLS, KARACHI Versus ABDUL MAJEED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 15th October 1976. This is in appeal against the ex parte order of the Labour Court ordering re‑instatement with certain benefits.
2. The respondent was in the service of the appellants having been appointed on 12th March, 1974. He was removed from service and monetary benefits admissible to him were denied. Consequently, he served grievance notice dated 4‑5‑1976 under se;;tion 25‑A upon the Management. Since the relief was not granted he approached the Labour Court.
3. The respondent in spite of the service of the notice of the application remained absent and, therefore, an ex parte order was passed allowing re‑instatement with following benefits as were claimed in the application:‑ (i) Profit bonus for two years. (ii) Encashment of earned leave for two years. (iii) C. L. A. and D. A. Rs. 110 per month from April 1975 to March 1976. (iv) C. L. A. at Rs. 85 per month w.e.f. June 1974 to March 1975. (v) C. L. A. Rs. 35 per month for April 1975. (vi) C. L. A. Rs. 35 per month for 20 days of March 1974. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
4. The first ground that was taken is that the appellant was not served and, therefore, ex parte proceedings could not be taken. This plea cannot be entertained as it is a question of fact and there is no material on record to sustain the objection. Moreover an application for setting aside the ex parts order was filed in the Labour Court and it was dismissed.
5. Apart from this, some legal objections were taken and it was pleaded that the monetary benefits which were allowed could not be granted for the period preceding three months of the serving of grievance notice. I find considerable force in this contention. In view of this I disallow Profit Bonus as it is not known when the bonus we payable. Encashment of earned leave is based upon section 49‑B of Factories Act, but since the respondent was re‑instated this claim cannot be allowed. So far Cost of Living and Dearness Allowance, as shown in Items Nos. 3, 4, 5 sad 6, are concerned, I allow them for the period of three months prior to the giving of the grievance notice and the claim for the period prior to that is disallowed.
6. In the circumstances the appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.