1984 PLP 1191 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus PAKISTAN OIL EXPELLER AND STEEL RE‑ROLLING MILLS, LAHORE THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1191 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus PAKISTAN OIL EXPELLER AND STEEL RE‑ROLLING MILLS, LAHORE THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1191 (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 1984 PLP 1191 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1191 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus PAKISTAN OIL EXPELLER AND STEEL RE‑ROLLING MILLS, LAHORE THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. R. Anwar for Appellant.
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 7th December, 1983.
- 2. An industrial dispute was raised by the C. B. A. union but the dispute was settled on the agreement that as the raw material was not available, the workers may resign and would be re‑employed on the re‑start of the Mills. The appellant and other workers resigned and received their dues. The appellant, however, denies to have given any resignation. Besides his own statement there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant did not execute any resignation. His case is that on blank paper his thumb‑impressions were received. This statement in the absence of cogent evidence was rightly disbelieved by the learned lower Court. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal R. W. 1 was the counsel for the C. B. A. in the industrial dispute and he had scribed all the resignations. He said categorically that in his presence the appellant had thumb‑marked the resignation and had received his dues. There was no enmity between the appellant and R. W. 1. so why he may have acted as a tool in the hands of the respondent in the victimization of the appellant. The President of the Union P. W. 2 too deposed against the appellant. There is overwhelm ing evidence of the fact that the appellant did execute resignation Exh. R. 1 by thumb‑marking it after it was on his asking scribed by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate R. W. I. The appellant received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim and was estopped from bringing application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his re‑instatement in service. His petition was therefore rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3) ‑ Grievance petition against termination of service‑Workman tendering resignation and receiving dues in full and final setllement of his claim‑Estopped from bringing grievance petition for re‑instatement‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed grievance petition.
Judgment & Decree
S. M. R. Anwar for Appellant. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 7th December, 1983. The appeal titled above emerges from the decision, dated 20th September, 1982 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service. 2. An industrial dispute was raised by the C. B. A. union but the dispute was settled on the agreement that as the raw material was not available, the workers may resign and would be re‑employed on the re‑start of the Mills. The appellant and other workers resigned and received their dues. The appellant, however, denies to have given any resignation. Besides his own statement there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant did not execute any resignation. His case is that on blank paper his thumb‑impressions were received. This statement in the absence of cogent evidence was rightly disbelieved by the learned lower Court. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal R. W. 1 was the counsel for the C. B. A. in the industrial dispute and he had scribed all the resignations. He said categorically that in his presence the appellant had thumb‑marked the resignation and had received his dues. There was no enmity between the appellant and R. W. 1. so why he may have acted as a tool in the hands of the respondent in the victimization of the appellant. The President of the Union P. W. 2 too deposed against the appellant. There is overwhelm ing evidence of the fact that the appellant did execute resignation Exh. R. 1 by thumb‑marking it after it was on his asking scribed by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate R. W. I. The appellant received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim and was estopped from bringing application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his re‑instatement in service. His petition was therefore rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. 3. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.