1993 PLP 908 (PLC)
MANZOOR ALI Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1993 PLP 908 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MANZOOR ALI Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 908 (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 1993 PLP 908 (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: 1993 PLP 908 (PLC) (MANZOOR ALI Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousuf Hussain Dilawari for Appellant.
- Mian Shamsul Haq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑‑Evidence not to be given in pleadings‑‑‑Petitioner workman deposing before Labour Court that he remained jobless after impugned removal order and such statement not rebutted‑‑‑Labour Court without assigning reasons disallowing back benefits‑‑‑Plea that since petitioner workman had not mentioned in grievance petition that he remained jobless he was not entitled to back benefits‑‑‑Plea repelled and order of Labour Court modified by Appellate Tribunal allowing back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Yousuf Hussain Dilawari for Appellant. Mian Shamsul Haq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986. The decision dated 16‑6‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. No reason has been given by the learned lower Court for not allowing back benefits to the appellant. The appellant in his statement deposed that he was jobless. This piece of evidence was not rebutted by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since in the grievance petition the appellant did not say that he was jobless, therefore, he is not entitled to back benefits. The argument is without force. In pleadings evidence is not to be given.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, full back benefits are allowed to the appellant. Present appellant only. A.E./225/Lb.P Appeal accepted.