1996 PLP 367 (PLC(CS))
DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MEHRAN DEPOT Versus MUHAMMAD RAEES AHMED and 2 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP 367 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MEHRAN DEPOT Versus MUHAMMAD RAEES AHMED and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 367 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 367 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 367 (PLC(CS)) (DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MEHRAN DEPOT Versus MUHAMMAD RAEES AHMED and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 1(2)(b), 2(xxviii) & 25-A
Maintainability of-- Employees who filed grievance petition were employees of Corporation which was under Provincial Government and under recent amendment to Service Tribunals Act, 1973, servants of employer Corporation were to be considered as civil servants
Labour Court, thus had no jurisdiction to deal with cases of employees as they came within definition of civil servants under Civil Servants Act, 1973.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Appellant. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1995. Respondents Muhammad Raees Ahmed and Ghulam Hussain Jafri were employees of Karachi Transport Corporation. This is a Corporation under the Government of Sindh. Under the recent amendment to the Services Tribunal Act, the servants of the Corporation are to be considered as civil servants unless they come under the exception as the workmen. The respondents are said to be a mechanic and they were not employed as drivers, cleaners, conductors or checkers by Road Transport Service under Schedule II of section 2(i)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. Under the circumstances the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to deal with these cases as they come within the definition of civil servants under the Civil Servants Act.
3. These appeals are therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. H.B.T./23/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.