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.MI‑343 of 1986, decided on 23rd June, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Word "employed", connotation of‑‑Employee on termination of his service, held, would cease to be a workman‑‑Employee whose services have been terminated could not come to Labour Court to challenge order of termination etc‑‑View of High Court reported at 1985 P L C 1053, holding such opinion would be binding on. Labour Courts until set aside by Supreme Court.
1985 P L C 1053 fol.
Muhammad Ashraf Representative for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1986.
The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 9‑4‑1986 recorded by learned Court No.5, Faisalabad to the extent it did not allow back benefits.
2. The impugned order of the learned lower Court is silent on this point. The appellant in his statement asserted that right from the order of his retirement he is jobless. No cross‑appeal has been brought by the respondent. The hurdle in the way of the appellant in coming successful in the appeal is that he according to 1985 P L C 1053 is not a workman. The Lahore High Court has interpreted the words "is employed" appearing in the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance that an employee on the termination of his services ceases to remain workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance. Since the appellant claims that he right from the date of his retirement is out of job it means that at the time of filing the grievance petition he was not in service so according to the view taken by the Lahore High Court, in the ruling referred to above the appellant is not a workman. He, therefore, could not come to the Labour Court to challenge the order of retirement. However, as 1985 PLC 1053 has been challenged before the Supreme Court the appellant will be entitled to claim benefits if the Supreme Court holds that the persons no longer in service are workmen and can get relief from the Labour Courts. The appellant is entitled to the back benefits but he would be entitled to receive the same under this order if the Supreme Court holds that the Labour Courts have jurisdiction otherwise the appeal stands dismissed.
A.A.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer