1970 PLP 294 (PLC)
ABDUL HAKEEM Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR
| Citation | 1970 PLP 294 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Industrial Appellate Tribunal West Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL HAKEEM Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 294 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 294 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Industrial Appellate Tribunal West Pakistan bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 294 (PLC) (ABDUL HAKEEM Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahboob Rizvi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th October 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back wages for period of unemployment‑Ordinarily payable on re‑instatement if no ordered otherwise by Industrial Court‑Court to give reasons for refusing payment of such back wages. Ordinarily, if a person is re‑instated he would be deemed to have been in service all along and, therefore, would be entitles to his wages and any other benefits that he may have otherwise received if the Court desires that in spite of re‑instatement the person re‑instated is not entitled to back wages, it must state its reasons. In the absence of any reason, the ordinary; rule will prevail, namely, that the applicant will be entitled back wages and benefits. Wasiullah Qureshi for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Application No. SKR‑205 of 1969, decided on 13th October1969. ‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back wages for period of unemployment‑Ordinarily payable on re‑instatement if no ordered otherwise by Industrial Court‑Court to give reasons for refusing payment of such back wages. Ordinarily, if a person is re‑instated he would be deemed to have been in service all along and, therefore, would be entitles to his wages and any other benefits that he may have otherwise received if the Court desires that in spite of re‑instatement the person re‑instated is not entitled to back wages, it must state its reasons. In the absence of any reason, the ordinary; rule will prevail, namely, that the applicant will be entitled back wages and benefits. Wasiullah Qureshi for Applicant. Mahboob Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th October 1969. This is an application under section 42 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, for interpretation of order dated 14th January 1969. By the said order, I ordered the re‑instatement of the applicant, Abdul Hakeem, mainly on the ground that his services were terminated without any sufficient cause. The question is whether the applicant is entitled to that emolument from the date that his services were done away will up to the date that he was re‑instated. Ordinarily, if a person in re‑instated he would be deemed to have been in service all along and, therefore, would be entitled to his wages and any other benefits that he may have otherwise received. If the Court desires that in spite of re‑instatement the person re‑instated is no entitled to back wages, it must state its reasons. In the absence of any reason, the ordinary rule will prevail, namely, that the applicant will be entitled to back wages and benefits. In then circumstances, I would interpret my order to mean that the applicant having been re‑instated is entitled to all the emolument and benefits for the period that he was out of employment, i.e. from the date he was dismissed till the date he was re‑instated.