1984 PLP 1545 (PLC(CS))
SUBEDAR GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH Versus FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, FAUJI SUGAR MILLS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1545 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SUBEDAR GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH Versus FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, FAUJI SUGAR MILLS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1545 (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 1984 PLP 1545 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1984 PLP 1545 (PLC(CS)) (SUBEDAR GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH Versus FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, FAUJI SUGAR MILLS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ismatullah for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 23rd May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38 (5)‑Reinstatement‑Contempt of Court‑Workman when dismissed was Incharge of Fair Price Shop and this fact is borne record of lower Court‑Such workman ordered to be re‑instated to his service and posted as Incharge Fair Price Shop‑No contempt of Court committed in observing order of Court in this behalf Petition dismissed. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. Ismatullah for Respondent. Date of hearing : 23rd May, 1984. This is a petition udder section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for punishing the respondent for contempt of Court for the reason that on reinstatement in service by the Court he was not given duty as M. T. O. but was in a lower grade posted as Incharge Fair Price Shop.
2. At the time of dismissal the petitioner was Incharge Fair Price Shop as is evident from the dismissal letter addressed to the petitioner, which is on the learned lower Court's file. At the time he was charge‑sheeted, no doubt, he was M. T. O. but since at the time of dismissal, he was Incharge A Fair Price Shop, he was rightly posted on the said post after the order of dismissal was set aside by the learned lower Court. If the petitioner consi ders that he was before dismissal wrongly posted as Incharge Fair Price Shop he should have separately challenged the order of posting but no violation of the order of reinstatement has been made.
3. As a result, the petition is dismissed. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.