Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 2172 1985 SLD 2172 1985 PLC 816
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeals Nos. LHR-262 and 264 of 1984, decided on 12th November. 1984.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MESSRS MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD.

VS

MUHAMMAD SHAM

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- -- S. 1 (4) (c) and S. O.-Maple Leaf Cement Factory - Neither run under authority of Government nor having statutory rules of service for its employees-Governed by Ordinance - Provision of condition of retirement without assigning any reason on completing 25 years service-Contrary to S. O. 12(3)-Not legal and has no binding force. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- --- S. 25-A-Reinstatement-Back benefits-Petitioner has to assert and prove fact that he remained unemployed during intervening period-Petitioner not stating before Labour Court that he remained unemployed-Back benefits, in circumstances, held, rightly disal­lowed. Messrs Muhammad Azam and Naeem Sultan Butt for Appellant. Syed Moin-ud-Din for Respondent. Date of hearing : 7th November, 1984. JUDGMENT The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision; dated 24th March, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, directing the reinstatement of Muhammad Shall (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) without back benefits. He has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Messrs Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has in its appeal challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respon­dent. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. 2. The respondent was originally employed as an Assistant. Vide order copy Exh. P. 1, dated 1st July, 1980 he was promoted as Junior Officer with the condition that on completing 25 years' service, he would be retired without assigning any reason. Vide order copy Exh. P. 2 he was retired on 10th January, 1982. The learned lower Court has held and rightly so, that the order of retirement is hit by Standing Order 12(3), of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This is not the case of the appellant that Standing Orders Ordinance, .1968 is not applicable. Section 1(4)(c) of the said Ordinance says that where an establishment is being run by or under the authority of the Government and it has its own…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492