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.
Appeal No. MN‑720 of 1984, decided on 21st October, 1985.
‑‑Ss. 37, 38(3‑a) & 51‑‑Appeal‑‑Revision‑‑Labour Court's order under S. 51‑‑Not appealable‑‑Impugned order accepting petition without properly calculating dues claimed‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, treating appeal as revision and setting aside order of Labour Court remanding case for redecision.
Mian Nisar Ahmad Salim for Appellant.
Muhammad Akbar Cheema for "Respondent.
Date of hearing: 15th October, 1985.
This is an appeal against the order, dated 27‑11‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 51 of whereby the petition of the respondent brought under for the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted as prayed for.
2. At the very outset it may be said that the appeal is not competent. According to sections 37 and 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, appeal lies to this Tribunal only from the awards passed under section 32(1) and decisions made under section 25‑A or section 34 and sentences passed under section 35(5)(e). So, no appeal lies against order passed under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. However, as the impugned order is not correct, I am inclined to treat the appeal as a revision. The learned lower Court has not calculated the dues and has accepted the petition as prayed for. The respondent claimed Rs.34,280‑81 as wages from 10‑12‑1973 to 12‑4‑1983, gratuity for the period from 9‑11‑1948 to 12‑4‑1983 and dues in lieu of 28 days leave. The respondent was admittedly retired on 29-6-1982, so prima facie could not claim wages, gratuity etc. upto 12‑4‑1983. Previously too the respondent was retired but was directed to be re-instated in service vide order, dated 31‑1‑1982 by the learned lower Court but there is no mention of allowing or disallowing back benefits. The learned lower Court did not give any reason for allowing wages from 10-12-1978. It is not explained what kind of leave was due in lieu of which Rs.1,545 were allowed. So, the impugned order is not maintainable.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for re-decision in the light of the observations made above.
A. E.
Case remanded
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer