1998 PLP 243 (PLC)
HYDERI GHEE INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD through Director Operation Versus LAL BUX
| Citation | 1998 PLP 243 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | HYDERI GHEE INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD through Director Operation Versus LAL BUX |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 243 (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 1998 PLP 243 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 243 (PLC) (HYDERI GHEE INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD through Director Operation Versus LAL BUX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Aftab Hassan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st October, 1996.
- 3. Syed Aftab Hassan for the management states that the respondent had himself resigned from service and he was paid Rs.10,000. He then got himself recruited in the Police Department. He was medically examined on 9-9-1995 and he received the appointment order dated 14-9-1995. That he was able to get these documents from the Police Department after decision of the Labour Court and could not, therefore, produce these documents as evidence, in time. He has accordingly prayed that this case may be remanded to the Labour Court, Hyderabad, for recording additional evidence of the appellant as well as of the respondent and giving a well-considered decision on merits. I feel that the request of the learned Advocate is reasonable. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded for recording of additional evidence and a fresh decision on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12
Order for reinstatement of employee in service with back benefits passed by Labour Court had been challenged by employer alleging that employee had himself resigned from service and he was paid amount as part of his legal dues
Employer had alleged that employee after resigning from service had got himself recruited in Police Department
Employer had prayed that case could be remanded to Labour Court for recording additional evidence of parties as he was able to get documents from Police Department to prove that employee after resignation had joined Police Department-- Request of employer for recording additional evidence being reasonable, case was remanded to Labour Court for recording the same so that well considered fresh decision could be given on merits.
Judgment & Decree
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12
Order for reinstatement of employee in service with back benefits passed by Labour Court had been challenged by employer alleging that employee had himself resigned from service and he was paid amount as part of his legal dues
Employer had alleged that employee after resigning from service had got himself recruited in Police Department
Employer had prayed that case could be remanded to Labour Court for recording additional evidence of parties as he was able to get documents from Police Department to prove that employee after resignation had joined Police Department-- Request of employer for recording additional evidence being reasonable, case was remanded to Labour Court for recording the same so that well considered fresh decision could be given on merits. Syed Aftab Hassan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 1st October, 1996. This appeal arises from an order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of the respondent for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was working as a clerk with Hyderi Ghee Industries Limited. He was promoted as Supervisor of Accounts. Hyderi Ghee Industries Limited was sold to one Sikandar Ali on or about 14-9-1992. Respondent Lal Bux continued in service under the new management. Ultimately Lal Bux was not paid his salary from June, 1994 because the factory was not working properly and there was shortage of funds. The respondent's service was, therefore, terminated on 7-2-1995 on payment of Rs.10,000 as part of his legal dues.
3. Syed Aftab Hassan for the management states that the respondent had himself resigned from service and he was paid Rs.10,
000. He then got himself recruited in the Police Department. He was medically examined on 9-9-1995 and he received the appointment order dated 14-9-1995. That he was able to get these documents from the Police Department after decision of the Labour Court and could not, therefore, produce these documents as evidence, in time. He has accordingly prayed that this case may be remanded to the Labour Court, Hyderabad, for recording additional evidence of the appellant as well as of the respondent and giving a well-considered decision on merits. I feel that the request of the learned Advocate is reasonable. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded for recording of additional evidence and a fresh decision on merits. H. B. T./202/Lb.S Order accordingly.