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.
Civil Petition No. 418‑K of 1985, decided on 9th March, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated 6‑8‑1985 passed in Constitutional Petition No. D‑552 of 1981).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.51 (2)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Contention of petitioner that his claim for back benefits covered by S.51(2) of Ordinance not properly appreciated by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine such contention.
Shahanshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th March, 1986.
‑‑The petitioner, who was in the service of the respondents as an Accountant, was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct on 28‑8‑1975. He made an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which was allowed by the Sind Labour Court by order dated 30‑4‑1978, and the respondent was directed to reinstate him in service without back benefits. It was however, observed that since the order of dismissal was set aside on technical ground, the respondent was free to hold fresh domestic enquiry against the petitioner and the petitioner's claim of back benefit will depend upon the said enquiry". This decision was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and further proceedings before the respondent were stayed. Meanwhile the post of Accountant against which the petitioner was employed was abolished on 30‑10‑1978 and the petitioner's appeal was, therefore, dismissed as having become in fructuous. The respondents nonetheless held an enquiry against the petitioner and he was dismissed without allowing him any back benefits. The petitioner thereupon filed an application under section 51 of the Ordinance claiming back benefits in the Sind Labour Court which was allowed on 7‑1‑1981, and the respondent was directed to pay all back benefits to the petitioner due up to the date of termination of his service on 30‑11‑1978. The respondents approached the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal for setting aside the order of the Sind Labour Court in the exercise of suo motu powers of revision which was dismissed on 16‑2‑1981. The respondents thereupon filed a constitutional petition in the Sind High Court challenging the orders dated 7‑1‑1981 and 16‑2‑1981 respectively passed by the Sind Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. We heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment. The learned High Court has held that section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance only envisages recovery of any money due from an employer under the settlement, or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand but this section does not provide for determination of any dues claimed against employer.
3. It was, however, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's claim was covered by subsection (2) of section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned High Court.
4.The above contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.500. The appeal shall be made ready, on the present record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
M.Y.H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer