Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS Respondent: DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ORANGI DEPOT
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi Title:MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
ORANGI DEPOT Case No.: Appeal No, KAR-132 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1989-05-02 Reported As: 1990 PLC 604 Result: Orders accordingly Judgment DECISION This is an appeal against the order, dated 241-1989, passed by learned Sind Labour Court No,I, Karachi, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the appellant but refused to allow him back benefits. 2. Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, counsel for the appellant, contends that once the learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman he is entitled to all the back benefits as his removal from service has been declared illegal whereas Mr.Gul Muhammad Soomro, appearing for K.T.C. contends that the workman has been reinstated in service only because on the technical ground that the ticketless travellers have not been examined by the K.T.C. He contends that it is not possible for K.T.C. to examine ticketless passengers as no travelling passenger takes the trouble to go to the Enquiry Officer and the Courts to give evidence and undergo all the expenses and trouble.. Be that as it may the fact remains that evidence on record being defective the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence on record on which the charges against the workman could stand proved and as such his reinstatement was ordered and no appeal has been preferred against the order of reinstatement. 3. However, on the perusal of the record it appears that neither there is positive proof that during the period the workman remain out of job or he was gainfully employed elsewhere nor is there any evidence or averment on record that he was not so gainfully employed. 4. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, back benefits to the extent of fifty per cent should be awarded to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.