Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD FAZIL VS Respondent: CH. RASHID, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DIVISION, LAHOREHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan LodhiH.R. Haider
1993 P L C 913
1993 P L C 913
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD FAZIL
Versus
Chaudhry RASHID, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DIVISION, LAHORE
Petition No. LHR7627 of 1986, decided on 18th November, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑
‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑‑Complaint not disclosing commission of an offence punishable under S. 38(5)‑‑‑Production of evidence in support of complaint not allowed.
H.R. Haider for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 4th November, 1986.
ORDER
This is a petition under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 alleging that the respondent has not, in compliance with the orders of learned Labour Court and this Tribunal dated 1‑11‑1980 and 4‑10‑1983, respectively, prepared service book, treated the petitioner as a permanent employee, has brought about two days' break in the petitioner's service by not paying two days pay for the month of August, 1986 and has not issued so far confirmation order. It is also contended that salary of work -charged employee is being paid to him. The complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under section 38(5) of the Ordinance. The direction of the learned Labour Court was only to reinstate the petitioner with back benefits. No direction can be found in the order dated 1‑11‑1980 for the preparation of service book, paying salary of a particular scale or post and issuing confirmation letter etc. If two days' pay has been paid less for the month of August, 1986 illegally, it may amount to a deduction but in the absence of an order of termination from service and then passing an order of re‑employment would not amount to causing a break in service. It is not urged that the services of the petitioner were terminated and after two days he was re‑employed. Learned counsel has requested that opportunity be given for producing evidence but when the very complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence under section 38(5), no question of proving the allegations made in the complaint arises.
2. As a result, the complaint is filed.
A.E./221/Lb.P Petition dismissed.