Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 786 1995 SLD 786 1995 PLD 631
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.435-L of 1994, decision dated: 26-07-1995
MANZOOR HUSSAUS SIAL FAZAL KARIM AND MUHAMMAD RYAS, JJ
Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman/Chief Manager, Area Electricity Board,

VS

and another AWAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Oureshi 1986 SCMR 18 rel.

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)- ---S, 17(1-B)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Employee of Water and -Power Development Authority---Dismissal from service ---Re­instatement of employee by Labour Court without back benefits---Labour Appellate Tribunal while maintaining order of re-instatement allowed him 50 per cent. of back benefits---High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction maintained order of re-instatement but set aside order with regard to grant of 50 per cent, of back benefits---Validity---Authority's plea was that employee of Water and Power Development Authority being civil servant in terms of S.17(1-B;, West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, Labour forums had no jurisdiction to pass orders in question, and same denoted to be set aside---Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention raised by the Authority. ORDER MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---Respondent No.2 in this civil petition for special leave to appeal, namely, Ch. Ghulam Muhammad was serving as Assistant with the petitioner, Water and Power Development Authority, when he was dismissed from service in consequence of his conviction by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. He challenged the order of his dismissal by making grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but the same was dismissed by the Punjab Labour Court No.ly Lahore. He then filed an appeal before respondent No.l, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which met with the same fate. Ultimately, he invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. The writ petition made _ by him in this regard was accepted and the matter was remanded to the Punjab Labour Court. After the remand order, the Punjab Labour Court ordered re­instatement of respondent No.2 without back benefits. The petitioner as well as respondent No-.2 were not satisfied with the order of the Punjab Labour Court and, therefore, the same was challenged by them before respondent No.l, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, by means of separate appeals. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed but the appeal of, respondent No.2 was partly…
🔒
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