2012PLC61 (PLP)
President United Bank Limited Versus AZIZ AHMED SHEIKH
| Citation | 2012PLC61 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman |
| Parties | President United Bank Limited Versus AZIZ AHMED SHEIKH |
| Primary Law | Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012PLC61 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012PLC61 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012PLC61 (PLP) (President United Bank Limited Versus AZIZ AHMED SHEIKH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner.
- Asmat Kamal Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 33 & 47(3)
Permissible benefits
Petitioner/bank had impeached the validity of the order passed by the Labour Court, whereby the court had ordered that the permissible benefits, if due to the aggrieved employee could not be unnecessarily refused to him due to pendency of the grievance petition
Impugned order was uncertain and vague as it had not been pointed out as to what type of benefits/facilities were legally permissible to the employees; which had been denied to them by the petitioner/bank--Such order was not sustainable
Case was remanded to the Labour Court, with the direction that employee would be at liberty to submit fresh application mentioning the details of the facilities/benefits legally permissible to him.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).
This revision petition impeaches the validity of the order dated 15-10-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Sargodha whereby the learned Court ordered that the permissible benefits, if due to the grievance petitioner may not be unnecessarily refused to him due to the pendency of the grievance petition.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner bank that the impugned order is uncertain and vague as it has not been pointed out that what type of benefits/facilities were legally permissible to the respondent which have been denied to him by the bank during the pendency of the grievance petition.
3. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the facilities/benefits could have been easily determined and even the bank is aware that what type of facilities which were legally permissible to him have been disallowed on account of the filing of the grievance petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
5. I have gone through the impugned order carefully. The impugned order is vague and unclear. It does not show that what type of facilities may be allowed to the respondent during the pendency of the grievance petition as such the impugned order is not sustainable.
6. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is accepted and B the case is remanded to Labour Court No.5, Sargodha with a direction that the respondent shall be at liberty to submit fresh application mentioning therein the details of the facilities/benefits legally permissible to him which are being refused to him during the pendency of the case by the bank authorities. The learned Labour Court may dispose of the matter in accordance with law. H.B.T./24/PLT???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.