1990 PLP 736 (PLC)
AKHLAQ HUSSAIN Versus REGIONAL MANAGER, A.D.B.P., MUZAFFARGARH and 2 others
| Citation | 1990 PLP 736 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AKHLAQ HUSSAIN Versus REGIONAL MANAGER, A.D.B.P., MUZAFFARGARH and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 736 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 736 (PLC)?
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: 1990 PLP 736 (PLC) (AKHLAQ HUSSAIN Versus REGIONAL MANAGER, A.D.B.P., MUZAFFARGARH and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.
- Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑‑Reinstatement‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Claim of back benefits on ground that workman remained jobless during period of his dismissal‑‑‑Employer alleging that workman was running taxi on hire during that period, failed to prove his allegation by adducing reliable evidence‑‑‑Workman denied that he had been running taxi‑‑‑Workman was allowed back benefits in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 6‑2‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. IX, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was accepted without back benefits.
2. In appeal the appellant has claimed back benefits. No appeal has bees brought by the respondent to challenge the direction of reinstatement of the appellant. The appellant in examination‑in‑chief urged that he was jobless. It cross‑examination he admitted that he had come on the taxi standing outside the Court but added that belonged to his brother and he used it whenever necessary, RW‑2 deposed that after being dismissed from service the appellant was running Taxi No. MN‑175 and that he had himself seen him driving it. In cross- examination he said that he had seen the appellant carrying passengers in the taxi. He admitted that the appellant had brought a criminal case against him in the N.I.R.C. in which the Regional Manager is also an accused. He further said that he has been charge‑sheeted in that case. RW‑2 did not explain how he believed that the persons being carried by the appellant in the taxi were passengers. He does not say that they were known to him. The said persons may be relatives or friends of the appellant. Moreover, the evidence of RW‑2 is not sufficient to controvert the contention of the appellant that he remained jobless and that the taxi belonged to his brother and he used it whenever it was necessary. There was an enmity between the appellant and the RW‑2 on account of the fact that the appellant had brought a criminal case against him which is running in the N.I.R.C. The learned lower Court thus wrongly relied upon the evidence of RW‑
2. There is no admission on the part of the appellant that he is driving the taxi on hire belonging to his brother. The learned lower Court thus wrongly disallowed back benefits to the appellant. 3.As a result the appeal is accepted and modifying the decision of the learned lower Court full back benefits are allowed to the appellant. H.B.T./680/Lb. P Appeal accepted.