1984 PLP 210 (PLC)
Mst. VERRIAN BIB1 Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA
| Citation | 1984 PLP 210 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khans Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Mst. VERRIAN BIB1 Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 210 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 210 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khans Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 210 (PLC) (Mst. VERRIAN BIB1 Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 20th December, 1982 .
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Grievance petition‑Heirs of deceased workman not _ entitled to maintain grievance petition before Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. FD‑532 (of 1982/Pb., decided on 12th January, 1983. ‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Grievance petition‑Heirs of deceased workman not _ entitled to maintain grievance petition before Labour Court. Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant. Date of hearing : 20th December, 1982 . In this appeal the decision, dated 24th August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed, on the ground that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not appli cable, The appellant is the widow of Fajja Masih who was employed as workman in Town Committee Tandlianwala. He died and the appellant brought an application for the recovery of gratuity and other dues. Not the appellant but her husband was the employee of the respondent and thus the appellant not being a workman was not entitled to move an application under section 25‑A in the Labour Court. If there is any undisputed amount and the employer wishes to pay, the heirs of the deceased worker may collect the same from him but in cases where the liability is disputed, the heirs of a deceased workman not being covered A by the definition of workman are not entitled to seek redress from the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1:
969. In these circumstances, the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed.
2. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine A.E Appeal dismissed.