1983 PLP 854 (PLC(CS))
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI Versus MATLOOB HUSSAIN SHAH
| Citation | 1983 PLP 854 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI Versus MATLOOB HUSSAIN SHAH |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 854 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 854 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1983 PLP 854 (PLC(CS)) (MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI Versus MATLOOB HUSSAIN SHAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sher Muhammad, Court Clerk for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 21st March, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
Ss. 2 (xiv) & 25‑A ‑ "Industry" ‑‑ Municipal Corporation‑ Maintaining water works and supplyin.2 water on charge ‑ Profit or no profit no consideration ‑Comes within definition of `factory'‑ Grievance petition of employee of Municipal Corporation (a workman) against alleged wrongful penalty order, held; rightly entertained by Labour Court. 1981 P L C 474 rel.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal calls in question the decision dated 22‑12‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi , whereby the penalties imposed upon the respondent were set aside and he was directed to be paid the wages for the period of suspension.
2. The case of the respondent was that he did not, . wilfully disobey the transfer order and that he was not relevant by the Municipal Magistrate. This evidence was not rebutted. It was not suggested to him in cross -examination that the .Municipal Magistrate had not detained him. This part of the statement of the respondent, therefore, went unchallenged and unrebutted. The learned lower Court, therefore, did not commit any illegality in accepting the unrebutted statement of the respondent.
3. The learned lower Court rightly held the appellant as an industry relying upon 1981 P L C
474. Municipal Corporations render service on payment. They maintain water works and supply water on charges Profit or no profit is no consideration. They come within the definition of factory also as by pumping water manufacturing process it does. The learned lower Court has rightly set aside the penalties imposed upon the respondent.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it. Appeal dismissed.