| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1628 2000 SLD 1628 2000 PLC 351 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Application No. LHR 465 of 1992/Pb., decision dated: 17-02-1999
MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Application No. LHR 465 of 1992/Pb., decision dated: 17-02-1999
MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ZAMIRUL HASAN
VS
ASAD SAEED, DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOP) P.R. MUGHALPURA, LAHORE
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial dispute Regularization in service Meaning and scope Employee who was dismissed from service, was ordered to be re instated in service, but period between his dismissal and reinstatement was excluded from period of his service Employee though had himself signified his consent for not claiming arrears of emoluments for period over which there was practical break in service, but said break in service could not create unbridgeable gap in period of his service and service of employee was to be treated continuous Period of break of service had to be taken into account for purpose of calculation of total length of service Entire span of service would have to be treated as a continuous one while undertaking whole service for determination of seniority and entitlement respecting regularization and confirmation of service as also award of annual increments and for calculation of pension, gratuity etc. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss. 25 A(8) & 38 (5) Non implementation of ,decision of Labour Appellate Tribunal When an employee made grievance of fact that Labour Appellate Tribunal decision had not been fully implemented by employer and that employee had been placed at a manifest disadvantage or subjected to an irreparable injury or a continuing wrong, grievance of employee in that respect could not be treated as ill based or misconceived one. (c) Interpretation of statutes Interpretation put on the of Judge Principles Correct construction was to be put on the wording and intent of the author, the 'Judge Express provisions of statute and well recognised legal principles were not to be ignored or misconceived Every effort ought to be made to undo miscarriage of justice and advance larger ends of fairplay, equity and justice. (d) Fundamental Rules F.R. 54(2044) Industrial dispute Period between removal from service and reinstatement in service Counting Period of unemployment between employee's removal from service and his reinstatement should be treated as one spent on duty and counted for computation of leave due and award of increments etc. JUDGMENT Zamirul Hasan, with a few other colleagues had litigation with the Railways over…
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