1991 PLP 505 (PLC)
Haji ALTAF ANSARI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS
| Citation | 1991 PLP 505 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher, J |
| Parties | Haji ALTAF ANSARI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 505 (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 1991 PLP 505 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Falak Sher, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 505 (PLC) (Haji ALTAF ANSARI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Azeem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 120/121‑‑‑Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Vo1.I R.337‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Back benefits‑‑‑Petitioner, a fitter in Railways, was removed from service for manhandling his Foreman, was, however, reinstated in service by Labour Court who disallowed back benefits for reasons that there was no averment of having remained unemployed during intervening period and decision of Labour Court was affirmed by Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Petitioner seeking direction for payment of back benefit by contending that under Rule 337 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual Vol. I, he was entitled to same was misconceived because the said Rules envisaged submission of a duly sworn affidavit on rupees five non- judicial stamp paper vouching earning certificate for period in question which had not been furnished to authorities nor any averment to that effect was made before Labour Court‑‑‑Impugned order was thus unexceptionable‑‑‑Petition also suffered from laches and no satisfactory explanation for a long delay of 4‑1/2 years had been tendered‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner, a fitter in the Railway Carriage Shop, Moghalpura having been tried in the case registered vide F.I.R. No. 121 of 21-4-1982 under section 506, P.P.C. read with section 120/121 of the Railways Act, 1890 at Police Station Railway, Lahore for the manhandling of his Foreman Muhammad Nawaz, was acquitted by the Special Railway Magistrate vide judgment dated 22-4-1984, primarily on the ground that the testimonies of the witnesses are discrepant, thus is not safe case for conviction. Subsequent whereto he was disciplinary proceeded against and was eventually removed from service on 4-10-1983 legality whereof was question by virtue of a petition contemplated by section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was allowed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore on 11-12-1984 on a technical ground that during the course of enquiry proceedings he was not examined at the tail-end, and was reinstated in service without back benefits for the reason that there is no averment of his having remained unemployed during the intervening period, which was, inter alia, affirmed in appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore vide the impugned judgment dated 17-3-1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby the present petition has been instituted after a lapse of nearly 4-1/2 years seeking a direction for the payment of back benefits by contending that under rule 337 of the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual Vol. I he is entitled to the same. I am afraid the contention is misconceived, because the rule ibid envisages submission of a duly sworn affidavit on Rs.5 non judicial stamp paper vouching the earning certificate for the period in question, which admittedly, has not been furnished to the authorities, nor any averment to this effect was made before the Labour: Court; consequently the impugned order is unexceptionable. Independent thereof the petition suffers from laches, since no satisfactory explanation for 4-1/2 years delay in filing thereof has been tendered, resultantly the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./A-1162/L Petition dismissed.