1996 PLP 280 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and 3 others Versus Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN through General Manager and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 280 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and 3 others Versus Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN through General Manager and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 280 (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 1996 PLP 280 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 280 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and 3 others Versus Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN through General Manager and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellants.
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 51
Back benefits
Employees who were permanent seasonal employees in sugar mills, had the only right of re-employment in next crushing season
Employees having been re-employed during crushing seasons, question of back benefits would not arise in their cases.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 51‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Employees who were permanent seasonal employees in sugar mills, had the only right of re‑employment in next crushing season‑‑‑Employees having been re‑employed during crushing seasons, question of back benefits would not arise in their cases. Nemo for Appellants. Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th December, 1995. These four appeals of Fauji Sugar Mills workers were filed in the year 1994 against the orders of the VIth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court held that they were seasonal employees and their only right was of re‑employment in the next crushing season. Against this order they have preferred these four appeals.
2. It is an admitted position that the appellants were permanent seasonal employees and they were to be given preference of re‑employment during the crushing season. This was done and they were all re‑employed. The question of back benefits did not arise in these cases and no such benefits were allowed.
3. These appeals have thus become infructuous as these workers are being re‑employed in every crushing season and they have no cause of any grievance.
4. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./9/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.