1984 PLP 1696 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MESSRS PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1696 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MESSRS PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1696 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1696 (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 1696 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MESSRS PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Tariq Masood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑
Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Termination wrongful‑Workman entitled to back benefits if remained unemployed during intervening period‑Employment need not essentially be regular or perma nent‑Wages earned during such period in any employment under another employer to be deducted ‑Workman driving rickshaw on daily wages basis during intervening period and not disclosing total earnings‑Held, not entitled to back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
‑
Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Termination wrongful‑Workman entitled to back benefits if remained unemployed during intervening period‑Employment need not essentially be regular or perma nent‑Wages earned during such period in any employment under another employer to be deducted ‑Workman driving rickshaw on daily wages basis during intervening period and not disclosing total earnings‑Held, not entitled to back benefits. Kh. Tariq Masood for Appellant. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1984. The decision dated 25th March, 1984 delivered by the learned Presid ing Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant. The reason given by the learned lower Court for disallowing back benefits is that the appellant did not state that he remained unemployed during the period of dismissal. The appellant has filed an affidavit with the appeal but it disproves his claim to back benefits. He says in his affidavit that "he has been driving rickshaw during this period on daily wages basis". He also says that it was not a regular feature. Regular employment is not necessary. If the worker has taken up employment under another employer, the wages earned by him by such employment is to be deducted from back benefits. The employment need not be regular or permanent. Since for the whole time the appellant remained employed and he has not disclosed his total earnings, he is not entitled to back benefits.
2. As a result, the appeal is dismissed having no force. A. E. Appeal dismissed.