1997 PLP 214 (PLC)
Miss NASIM MEHDI Versus KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES through General Manager, Karachi
| Citation | 1997 PLP 214 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Miss NASIM MEHDI Versus KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES through General Manager, Karachi |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 214 (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 1997 PLP 214 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 214 (PLC) (Miss NASIM MEHDI Versus KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES through General Manager, Karachi). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz Ghanghro for Appellant.
- Muhammad Hussain for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S..51‑‑‑Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951), S. 14(1) & (4)‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Question of dual nationality‑‑‑Employee working in employer (Foreign) Airlines was a Pakistani national, but later on when she married a foreigner, she obtained dual nationality‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated on plea that she being a foreign national had failed to obtain work permit from Government of Pakistan for employment in Pakistan‑‑ Labour Court re‑instated employee in service holding that employee who had retained her Pakistan nationality could continue her service‑‑‑Employee was re‑instated in service, but she was denied back benefits on ground that she was partly responsible for her removal from service for having not disclosed fact of her dual Pakistan nationality to employer Airlines ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Employee had from the very start informed employer Airlines that she had not renounced Pakistan nationality‑‑‑In absence of any contributory negligence on part of employee, she could not be deprived of back benefits for which she was entitled to.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hussain for Respondent Date of hearing: 30th May, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi partly allowing the grievance petition of Miss Nasim Mehdi, rejecting her prayer for back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant Miss Nasim Mehdi was employed by K.L.M. Dutch Airlines as Telephone Operator in the year 1988. She was Pakistani national at that time. Afterwards she married a Dutch national one Mr. John Williams and obtained dual Dutch nationality also. She possessed Pakistani as well as Dutch Passports. The respondent K.L.M. Airlines thereafter terminated her services on the plea that being a Dutch national she had to obtain Work Permit from Government of Pakistan for employment in Pakistan. Since she has not obtained this permission from Pakistan Government, her services were terminated.
3. Miss Nasim Mehdi explained to the company that even after marriage to a Dutch national, she had retained her Pakistan nationality which was permissible under. the Pakistan Law, and her services should not therefore be discontinued. The Airlines company however invited her attention to section,14(1) of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 that because she had not renounced the Dutch nationality she ceased to be a national of Pakistan. The Airlines neglected to read that section as a whole and did not refer to section 14(4) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act wherein it is clearly stated:‑‑ "Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to a female citizen of Pakistan who is married to a person who is not a citizen of Pakistan. "
4. The appellant was thus exempted from application of section 14(1) regarding dual citizenship or nationality. The Dutch Airlines were not therefore justified in terminating her services on this ground that she had no Work Permit.
5. The correspondence shows that the appellant has drawn their attention that she can continue in service being a national of Pakistan also and her Pakistan nationality does not automatically cease in view of subsection (4) of section
14. The learned Labour Court accordingly reinstated her in service but erroneously believed that she was not entitled to back benefits because she is partly responsible for her removal from service for having not disclosed the fact of her dual Pakistani nationality to the Dutch Airlines. But she had from the very start informed the Airlines that she was born in Pakistan being a Pakistani and she has not renounced Pakistan nationality. It appears the Dutch Airlines were ignorant of the legal position according to section 14(4) of the Citizenship Act. But "ignorance of law is no excuse" and the appellant cannot be blamed for the ignorance of the respondents in this respect. There is no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and she cannot be deprived of the back benefits on this ground.
6. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the back benefits to Miss Nasim Mehdi within 30 days. H.B.T./126/Lb.S Appeal allowed.