1994 PLP 625 (PLC)
ZAREEN SHAH Versus VTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP 625 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZAREEN SHAH Versus VTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 625 (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 1994 PLP 625 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 625 (PLC) (ZAREEN SHAH Versus VTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Mirza, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38(3‑A)‑‑‑Employee had filed complaint alleging that he had been deprived of various benefits accruing to him which had entailed breach of terms of settlement entered into between C.BA. and employers. but that complaint was dismissed by Court without seeing whether employee had made out a prima facie case‑‑‑Held, that at the stage when process had not been issued, all that was to be seen was whether petitioner/employee had made out a prima facie case which merited consideration‑‑‑Question of evaluating statement of petitioner was not warranted and that was to be undertaken after parties had led evidence‑‑‑Order of Labour Court being not sustainable was set aside in revision and case was remanded to be decided afresh by Labour Court. Raja Shamsuzzaman for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Masood Mirza, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th April, 1994. The applicant was dismissed by the respondents from service in 1987. He had filed a petition before the Labour Court and the same came to be allowed but without back benefits. The respondents had come in appeal before this Tribunal and the appeal was allowed. The appeal which was filed by the applicant against the denial of the back benefits also came to be dismissed.
2. The matter was then taken to the High Court in a writ petition and the applicant's writ petition was allowed but again without back benefits.
3. It was thereafter that he had filed a complaint for being deprived of various benefits accruing to him which entailed the breach of the terms of the settlement entered into between the CBA and the management.
4. At the stage when the process had not been issued, all that was to be seen was whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case which merited consideration. The question of evaluating his statement was not warranted That was to be undertaken after the parties had led evidence. The order is unsustainable.
5. As a result the Revision application is allowed and the matter will go back to the learned Presiding Officer for disposal in accordance with law. H.B.T./2325/Lb.S Revision allowed.