2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Punjab, Lahore and others Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another
| Citation | 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | Punjab, Lahore and others Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Punjab, Lahore and others Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Government Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Farooq Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Afzal Walah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 14.
- Date of hearing: 24th September, 1999.
- Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Government Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- 2. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners contends that the orders of the Punjab Labour Court‑1, the Punjab Lahore Appellate Tribunal and the High Court are based on erroneous assumption of fact, in that, the respondents were not appointed against permanent posts, inasmuch as, the sanctioned strength of the relevant posts was only 15 while the respondents, who are 30 in number were working as work‑charge employees.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15-6-1998, passed by Lahore r High Court, Lahore in W.Ps. Nos 11061/98 to 11063/98).
S.2(i) & S.O. 1(b)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to `S` consider questions: whether employees were appointed against permanent posts or they were working as work-charge employees; whether employee., were "workers" within meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and had been performing their duties as low-paid employees and whether after completion of 90 days' period employees had become permanent , "workmen" or were "work-charge employees".
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.2(i) & S.O. 1(b)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.185(3)‑‑‑Status of permanent workmen‑‑‑Determination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to `S` consider questions: whether employees were appointed against permanent posts or they were working as work‑charge employees; whether employee., were "workers" within meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and had been performing their duties as low‑paid employees and whether after completion of 90 days' period employees had become permanent , "workmen" or were "work‑charge employees". Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Government Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Farooq Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Afzal Walah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.
14. Date of hearing: 24th September, 1999. IRSHAD~HASAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑This order shall dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave, to Appeal Nos. 1536‑L of 1998 to 1538 L of 1998.
2. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners contends that the orders of the Punjab Labour Court‑1, the Punjab Lahore Appellate Tribunal and the High Court are based on erroneous assumption of fact, in that, the respondents were not appointed against permanent posts, inasmuch as, the sanctioned strength of the relevant posts was only 15 while the respondents, who are 30 in number were working as work‑charge employees.
3. The next question for consideration is whether the respondents `ire A workers within the meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and had been performing, their duties as low‑paid employees and whether after the completion of 90 days' period they had become permanent workmen or were work‑charge employees?
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above point. Meanwhile, contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the contesting respondents are stayed till final disposal of the appeals. H.B.T./G‑55/S Leave to appeal granted