1996 PLP 531 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD JUMMAN Versus Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD., BADIN
| Citation | 1996 PLP 531 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JUMMAN Versus Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD., BADIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 531 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 531 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1996 PLP 531 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD JUMMAN Versus Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD., BADIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 1996.
- I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the applicant. The respondent is called absent and Mr. Raees Mushtaq, Advocate for the respondent has remained absent for want of instructions.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 38(3-a) & 51
Scope
Section 51., Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 related to recovery of money as directed by Labour Court and there was no provision of appeal, against such order of Labour Court
General provisions regarding revision in S. 38(3-a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, could be made applicable to any decision of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal was competent to revise an order made by Labour Court even under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by way of appeal
If Labour Court had thought fit to award benefits of permanent post from date of passing order and not retrospectively from date permanent post had become vacant, such order was usual order passed in cases of promotion and Labour Appellate Tribunal could not interfere in revision on the point of order being incorrect, illegal or improper. PLD 1991 SC 385 ref. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
PLD 1991 SC 385 ref. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1996. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the applicant. The respondent is called absent and Mr. Raees Mushtaq, Advocate for the respondent has remained absent for want of instructions.
2. In this case the applicant Cane Clerk had been made permanent from the time a permanent class of vacancy occurred but he was paid the salary only from the date of the order and not retrospectively. The applicant, therefore, filed an application, before the Labour Court for payment of salary under section
51. The learned Labour Court, however, remarked that he could not be paid enhanced salary for the period that he did not work in the permanent vacancy and, the order did not have any retrospective effect. The Labour Court directed payment of consequential benefits to the employee when the order was passed namely 27‑7‑1991 and not for the intervening period. Against this order of Labour Court not allowing payment of salary for the intervening period this Revision Application has been filed. Section 51 relates to recovery of money as the Labour Court may direct. There is no provision of appeal against the order of the Labour Court under section
51. The general provisions regarding Revision under section 38(3‑a),. I.R.O. can be made applicable to any decision of the Labour Court as provided in PLD 1991 SC 385 and the Labour Appellate Tribunal is competent to revise an order made by Labour Court even under Payment of Wages Act by way of appeal but in this case the Labour Court has thought fit to award benefits of permanent post from the date of passing the order and not retrospectively from the date the permanent post became vacant. Such order is the usual order passed in cases of promotion and this Tribunal can see no reason to interfere in Revision on the point of order being incorrect, illegal or improper.
3. This Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./35/Lb.S Revision application dismissed