Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

MUHAMMAD SOHAIL FAROOQ versus DAWOOD YAMAHA LTD.


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3) Application for Complaint against Termination of Service The Applicant has taken the position, acknowledging receipt of money for a complete and final settlement of the liability, acknowledging the forced payment of the amount. Is not considered as a request for. , Is not properly permitted by the Labor Court
1986 P L C 1071

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhamnad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,

Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD SOHAIL FAROOQ

versus

DAWOOD YAMAHA Ltd. and another

Appeal No. LHR‑585 of 1983, decided on 8th December, 1984

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service‑ Petitioner admitting to have received amount towards full and final settlement of dues‑‑Stands estopped‑‑Plea of forced payment of amount not convincing as believable‑‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly disallowed by Labour Court.

Pervez Inayat Malik for Appellant.

M.S. Bokhari for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1st December, 1984.

JUDGMENT

The decision, dated 12‑12‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the sole ground that he had received Rs.2,586 towards his full and final settlement of his claim, vide Exh. R‑9. It has been found that the order of termination is uncalled for as the post existed even after the termination of the services of the appellant.

2. The appellant took up the plea in his statement that he was compelled to receive Rs.2,586 towards full and final settlement. The compulsion, according to him, was that issuance of receipt of stock was refused. The statement of the appellant was rebutted by R.W.1 who deposed that the appellant had received the amount of his own free will and without any protest. This is not believable that the appellant was forced to receive the amount. It was not suggested to R.W.1 in cross‑examination that any stocks were received from the appellant and that its receipt was withheld on the plea that it would be A issued in case the appellant accepted the amount of Rs. 2,586 towards full and final settlement of his claim. No doubt, in Exh. R‑4 break‑up is not given but since the appellant admitted that he had received the amount towards full and final settlement, he stands eatopped. His petition was, therefore, on this ground rightly disallowed.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

A.E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Ubaro lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.