Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Petition No. LHR‑297 of 1985, decided on 13th October, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑Complaint for non‑compliance with direction of Labour Court‑‑Labour Court directing that question of entitlement of back benefits will be decided by employer‑‑Employer allowing leave due for period involved‑‑Question of entitlement of back benefits, in circumstances, held, decided one way or the other and order of Labour Court stood complied with, hence, there was no case of contempt of Court.
Syed Muhammad Naqi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 30th September, 1985.
This is a complaint under section 38 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 alleging that the respondent did not obey the direction of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore. The direction was that the respondent would decide the question of the entitlement to back benefits. The respondent has allowed leave due. Since question of entitlement to back benefits has been decided one way or the other, it cannot be said that the order of the learned Labour Court has not been complied with the petitioner is not satisfied with the order, he may challenge it but prima facie no case of contempt of Court stands made out.
2. As a result, the petition is dismissed.
A.E. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer