1988 PLP 630 (PLC(CS))
LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus TAHIR AHMAD
| Citation | 1988 PLP 630 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus TAHIR AHMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 630 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 630 (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: 1988 PLP 630 (PLC(CS)) (LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus TAHIR AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Amin Lone for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Temporary appointment against leave vacancy‑‑Regular employee on leave not yet returned‑ Termination of temporary appointee, in circumstances, held, was rightly not approved and order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Amin Lone for Appellant. Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 9‑5‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as Mali on 24‑7‑1985 on the leave vacancy of Muhammad Siddique and his services were terminated on 1‑10‑1986. The learned lower Court has accepted the grievance petition on the ground that since the leave vacancy was continuing the services of the respondent could not be terminated. R.W.1 examined by the appellant stated that Muhammad Siddique had gone to 10 months leave and in cross‑examination said that he did not know if he had returned from leave or not. The evidence of the respondent to the effect that Muhammad Siddique has not returned from leave, therefore, stands unrebutted. In these circumstances the learned lower Court has rightly directed the re‑instatement of the respondent.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned the respondent deposed that eversince the date of his dismissal from service he was jobless. This evidence was not rebutted as R.W.1 did not say that the respondent got some job elsewhere.
4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A. E. /373/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.