1981 PLP 721 (PLC(CS))
ABDUL SATTAR Versus MSSERS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS
| Citation | 1981 PLP 721 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR Versus MSSERS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑, DECISION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 721 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑, DECISION as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 721 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 721 (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL SATTAR Versus MSSERS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing : 26th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)..‑‑Revision‑‑Suo motu proceedings‑‑Applicant invoking suo motu jurisdiction of revision on plea that Labour Court failed by mistake to decide issue of back benefits while passing reinstate ment order‑‑Order of Labour Court containing specific decision on such issue‑Revisional powers, in circumstances, not exercised by Appellate Tribunal This purports to be information submitted by one Abdul Sattar, a former workman of Gul Ahmad Textile Mills, for taking sue motu revi sion proceedings in respect of an order passed by the learned Fourth La bour Court on 2nd July, 1980, under section
51. I. R. O. The informant is aggrieved by the said order which does not award him back benefits. The informant himself is absent and has authorised his son Abdul Ghaffar to appear before this Tribunal. He has been heard.
2. The application by the informant under section 51, I. R. O. is based upon the decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court, dated 21st August, 1978. The said order does not specifically award any back bene fits to the informant but directs that the termination order of the informant is set aside and the respondent‑Mills were ordered to pay up to date legal dues to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Ordinance and any other law for the time being in force. It may be pointed out that whereas previously under section 36‑E, I. R. O. upon reinstatement in service, a wrongly dismissed or discharged worker was entitled normally to back benefits, no such provision now exist on the statute book and it has been left to the discretion of the Labour Court to pass such orders as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. There is, thus, no statutory provision requiring the respondent mills to pay back benefits to the informant consequent upon his reinstatement in service.
3. It may further be mentioned that the contention of the informant that the learned Labour Court by mistake and oversight has not consid ered the point of back benefits and has not discussed the same is wholly incorrect and false. The learned Labour Court in the third‑last and second‑last paragraphs of its order has fully discussed this issue and has awarded the informant a sum of Rs. 189,42 only as back benefits for 144 days only.
4. The information submitted by the informant is, thus, misconceived and I find no substance therein. No grounds taking suo mote revision proceedings are made out.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)..‑‑Revision‑‑Suo motu proceedings‑‑Applicant invoking suo motu jurisdiction of revision on plea that Labour Court failed by mistake to decide issue of back benefits while passing reinstate ment order‑‑Order of Labour Court containing specific decision on such issue‑Revisional powers, in circumstances, not exercised by Appellate Tribunal Date of hearing : 26th November, 1980. This purports to be information submitted by one Abdul Sattar, a former workman of Gul Ahmad Textile Mills, for taking sue motu revi sion proceedings in respect of an order passed by the learned Fourth La bour Court on 2nd July, 1980, under section
51. I. R. O. The informant is aggrieved by the said order which does not award him back benefits. The informant himself is absent and has authorised his son Abdul Ghaffar to appear before this Tribunal. He has been heard.
2. The application by the informant under section 51, I. R. O. is based upon the decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court, dated 21st August, 1978. The said order does not specifically award any back bene fits to the informant but directs that the termination order of the informant is set aside and the respondent‑Mills were ordered to pay up to date legal dues to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Ordinance and any other law for the time being in force. It may be pointed out that whereas previously under section 36‑E, I. R. O. upon reinstatement in service, a wrongly dismissed or discharged worker was entitled normally to back benefits, no such provision now exist on the statute book and it has been left to the discretion of the Labour Court to pass such orders as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. There is, thus, no statutory provision requiring the respondent mills to pay back benefits to the informant consequent upon his reinstatement in service.
3. It may further be mentioned that the contention of the informant that the learned Labour Court by mistake and oversight has not consid ered the point of back benefits and has not discussed the same is wholly incorrect and false. The learned Labour Court in the third‑last and second‑last paragraphs of its order has fully discussed this issue and has awarded the informant a sum of Rs. 189,42 only as back benefits for 144 days only.
4. The information submitted by the informant is, thus, misconceived and I find no substance therein. No grounds taking suo mote revision proceedings are made out.