Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 120 of 1979, decided on 22nd October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan, (1973), Art. 199‑ Suspension of order of Labour Court by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Extension of suspension order beyond 20 days‑‑Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits‑‑Appeal admitted to hearing and operation of impugned order of Labour Court suspended‑‑Appeal not decided and suspension order lapsing on expiry of 20 days‑‑Management invoking writ jurisdiction‑‑Writ petition admitted to hearing and order of Labour Court suspended till decision of Appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑ Appellate Tribunal taking view that appeal had become infructuous and disposing it accordingly‑‑Tribunal, in circumstances, ‑held, not justified in disposing oaf appeal as infructuous because main questions raised in appeal were still to be adjudicated upon‑‑High Court remitting case to Tribunal for decision on merits with order suspending operation of order of Labour Court till decision of appeal and direction that workman will not claim back benefits pending final disposal of , appeal before Appellate Tribunal.
Muhammad Ismail Qureshi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondents..
Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1985.
‑‑Sarwar Rana, respondent No. 1 was ordered to be re‑instated in service with back benefits by Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore vide his orders, dated 27‑11‑1978. Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd., the present petitioners challenged these orders in appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was admitted to hearing and the operation of the impugned order was suspended. These orders were passed on 13‑12‑1978. The appeal was not decided within 20 days as a result of which the stay order granted lapsed after the expiry of 20 days. The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing and the impugned order was suspended. In pursuance of the orders of this Court of 13‑1‑1979, the Tribunal passed fresh orders on 14‑2‑1979 and disposed of the appeal as, according to the Tribunal, it had become infructuous.
2. In the writ petition, it was prayed that the orders of the Labour Court No. 1 be suspended till the final disposal of the appeal pending before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. In other words, the petitioner prayed for extension of stay order during the pendency of the appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, as the Appellate Tribunal could not grant a stay for more than 20 days. Under these) circumstances, there was no justification for the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal as infructuous as the main questions raised in the appeal were still to be adjudicated upon. The Punjab Appellate Tribunal may now dispose of the appeal on merits and for this purpose the case is remitted to it.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has stated that unless specific directions are given the petitioner may be burdened with the payment of back benefits during the pendency of the appeal against which, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner may justifiably show cause to the Appellate Tribunal. The request is genuine. It is, therefore, directed that pending the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 will not claim any back benefits which will of course be determined by the Appellate Tribunal and the B payment of back benefits will depend on the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The respondent will, however, be entitled to receive the current benefits during the pendency of the appeal, which too will be subject to the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.
4. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 30‑10‑1985. In view of the delay in disposal of the writ petition, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal within two months.
A. E.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer