1986 PLP 426 (PLC)
Messrs PACKAGES Ltd. Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR
| Citation | 1986 PLP 426 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs PACKAGES Ltd. Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 426 (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 1986 PLP 426 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 426 (PLC) (Messrs PACKAGES Ltd. Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Altaf for Petitioner.
- Zafar Malik for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim injunction by Labour Court‑‑Three conditions present viz. (1) arguable case; (ii) balance of convenience in favour of petitioner; and (iii) petitioner likely to suffer irreparable injury not calculable in terms of money‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified in granting interim stay order.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim injunction by Labour Court‑‑Three conditions present viz. (1) arguable case; (ii) balance of convenience in favour of petitioner; and (iii) petitioner likely to suffer irreparable injury not calculable in terms of money‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified in granting interim stay order. Javed Altaf for Petitioner. Zafar Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th October, 1985. The order, dated 16‑9‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore is reported to be wrong.
2. The respondent was getting medical aid from the petitioner. House rent allowance was not added to his wages for the purposes of the application of Social Security Ordinance and since by doing so, the pay became less than Rs.1,500 medical aid was stopped asking the respondent to get himself and his children medically treated by the dispensaries of the Social Security. The respondent challenged the action in an application under section 25‑A and applied for ad interim injunction which has been granted. The said order is reported to be illegal. All the three conditions for issuing ad interim stay order are present, so the stay order is justified. The respondent has an arguable case if house rent allowance can be included in the pay. According to the definition of wages as given in the Payment of Wages Act, value of house accommodation has been excluded. Prima facie house rent allowance is different in nature from the value of house accommodation. Till final disposal of the grievance petition the respondent cannot be forced to get treatment from a doctor in whom he has no confidence. He wants to get treatment from the doctor of the petitioner. So balance of convenience goes in his favour. He is likely to suffer irreparable injury by the refusal of the stay order as he will be forced to get treatment from a Social Security's doctor in whom he has little confidence. The loss likely to be suffered by him thereby cannot be calculated in terms of money. So the impugned order is not subject to any interference.
3. As a result, the revision having no force, is rejected. A. E. Revision rejected.