2005 PLP 192 (PLC)
AQIL RAUF Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT No.V and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 192 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Shabbir Ahmed, J |
| Parties | AQIL RAUF Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT No.V and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 192 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 192 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Shabbir Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 192 (PLC) (AQIL RAUF Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT No.V and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Abdul Zubair for Respondent No.2.
- Ms. Akhtar Rehana and Abbas Ali A.A.G. for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of order dated 12-9-2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.V, Karachi, whereby a sum of Rs.2,26,650 was directed to recover as arrears under land revenue from the petitioner claimed by the respondent No.2 as back-benefits claimed by him in grievance Petition No.238 of 1994. The petition was admitted for regular hearing to examine whether the respondent No.1 could pass the impugned order unless the amount to be paid, has been determined. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In Ghulam Mustafa v. Vth Sind Labour Court and another (1987 PLC 601), in similar circumstances it was ruled that a closer look at section 51 indicates that the first part of section 51, no doubt contemplates recovery of pre-determined dues from the employer as arrears of land revenue or as the case may be, as public demand However, the second part assigns a dual function to the Labour Court; first to determine the amount awarded by way of back-benefits if such amount is capable of being computed in terms of money and second to order its recovery from the employer as provided for in subsection (1) of the section. The claim of the respondent is pertaining to back-benefits, which is not determined in the reinstatement order dated 14-2-1998. There is no determination with regard to the back-benefits. The learned Presiding Officer on the application of the respondent No.2 without determining the amount of back-benefits, granted the application. In such circumstances, the order is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for decision on merits. The petitioner to appear before the Labour Court may contest the matter. Petition stands disposed of 2 to
4. Dismissed as infructuous. H.B.T./A-183/K Order accordingly.