1973 PLP 29(1) (PLC)
SYED HUSSAIN Versus Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN
| Citation | 1973 PLP 29(1) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Baluchistan Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer, Chairman, Bilgrami and Irshad Rana, Members |
| Parties | SYED HUSSAIN Versus Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 29(1) (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 29(1) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Baluchistan Labour Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer, Chairman, Bilgrami and Irshad Rana, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 29(1) (PLC) (SYED HUSSAIN Versus Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Versus Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN Application No. 85 of 1972. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 34 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stand ing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. .18‑‑‑Emoluments for period during which applicant employee remained jobless ‑ Not admissible‑Consolidated decree passed by Labour Welfare Officer for arrears of pay and emoluments for period during which employee remained jobless‑Amended accordingly. ABDUL QADEER (CHAIRMAN).‑The applicant has requested that the Labour Welfare Officer, Quetta, by his decision dated 10th of July 1971 awarded a decree of Rs. 1,070 against the respondent, but the respondent failed to pay the same and the matter was transferred to the Labour Director but the respondent did not appear before the Labour Director. Consequently he has moved this Court for the redress of his grievance. The papers from the Labour Director were also summoned. In his application the applicant has claimed the arrears of pay, amounting to Rs. 770 and 'Rs. 300 as emoluments for the period for which he remained without job. He is not entitled the second relief, but as the respondent is absent in spite of service we have no option but to accept the claim of the applicant with regard to the arrears of pay, we therefore allow Rs. 770 to the applicant and against the respondent.