1989 PLP 268 (PLC)
NAIMAT ALI Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, G.T.S. URBAN DEPOT, SADDAR, LAHORE
| Citation | 1989 PLP 268 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NAIMAT ALI Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, G.T.S. URBAN DEPOT, SADDAR, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 268 (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 1989 PLP 268 (PLC)?
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: 1989 PLP 268 (PLC) (NAIMAT ALI Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, G.T.S. URBAN DEPOT, SADDAR, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saleem Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 38 (5)‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑Termination of service‑‑Reinstatement‑ Grievance petition against termination accepted by Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Order of Appellate Tribunal set aside in Writ petition by High Court‑‑Petitioner put back to duty‑‑Order of High Court stood implemented‑‑Non‑payment of wages for period when appeal of respondent employer was accepted by Tribunal till order of High Court, being not against any direction for payment of wages, held, did not amount to contempt of Court‑‑Complaint on basis of such clam was dismissed in circumstances. Malik Ghulam Rasool for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 38 (5)‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑Termination of service‑‑Reinstatement‑ Grievance petition against termination accepted by Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Order of Appellate Tribunal set aside in Writ petition by High Court‑‑Petitioner put back to duty‑‑Order of High Court stood implemented‑‑Non‑payment of wages for period when appeal of respondent employer was accepted by Tribunal till order of High Court, being not against any direction for payment of wages, held, did not amount to contempt of Court‑‑Complaint on basis of such clam was dismissed in circumstances. Malik Ghulam Rasool for the Complainant. M. Saleem Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987. This is an application brought under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for punishing the respondent for not paying wages to the petitioner for the period from the date on which the appeal of the respondent was accepted by this Tribunal and order of reinstatement recorded in favour of the petitioner was set aside, to the date on which the writ petition was accepted and setting aside the decision of this Tribunal.
2. Since the grievance of the petitioner is not for the wages from the date of his dismissal till the date on which the grievance petition was accepted by the learned Labour Court, it cannot be said that any contempt of Court has been committed. No doubt, the High Court has set aside the order of this Tribunal whereby the grievance petition was dismissed and by such an order the order of reinstatement recorded by the learned lower Court stood revived, but non payment of wages for the period mentioned above is not against any direction for the payment of wages. By this I do not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to the wages for the said period, but since there is no direction, it cannot be said that either the order of the learned Labour Court or that of the High Court has not been implemented or that the said orders have been violated. Since the petitionc7r has been put back on duty in compliance with the order passed by the Labour Court which was revived by the order of the High Court, the said orders stand implemented. Since after the writ was accepted, the petitioner was put back on I duty, he is entitled to the wages.
3. As a result of what has been said above, the complaint fails and is dismissed, but the respondent is directed to pay wages for the period 1‑7‑1982 to 1‑11‑1986. A.E/407/Lb.P Complaint dismissed.