1996 PLP 625 (PLC(CS))
S. IQBAL HUSAIN PARWANA Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN,
| Citation | 1996 PLP 625 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | S. IQBAL HUSAIN PARWANA Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 625 (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 625 (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 625 (PLC(CS)) (S. IQBAL HUSAIN PARWANA Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
- Fasihul Islam Nomani for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.. 2(xxviii) & 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)
Workman-- Employee who initially joined employer Bank as Steno Typist, by gradual promotions rose to post of Extra-Assistant Director and in that capacity was drawing salary more than six thousand per month
Duties of employee were supervisory and managerial in nature and he had staff working under him
Employee who belonged to Officers category, had not been able to prove that he was a workman governed by West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 while burden was on him to prove that he was a workman
Since work of employee was not of clerical or manual nature, Labour Court, had rightly found that he was not a workman
Even if employee had been a, "workman", he could not bring his grievance for not being considered for promotion under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as it was not a right guaranteed or secured under any law, award or settlement. 1993 PLJ 221 and 1989 PLC 309 ref.
Judgment & Decree
1993 PLJ 221 and 1989 PLC 309 ref. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Fasihul Islam Nomani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1996. This appeal arises from order of the 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 that he was not being considered for promotion, move‑over etc. in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant had joined the Bank in 1973 as Steno-typist. By gradual promotions he rose to the post of Extra‑Assistant Director posted in Audit Department in 1985. The appellant in that capacity was drawing the salary of Rs.6,625 per month. His duties were supervisory and managerial in nature arid he had Bank staff working under him. The appellant belonged to officers category and the appellant has not been able to prove that he was a workman governed by Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. Since his work was not of clerical or manual stature the learned Labour Court held that the appellant had not discharged his burden by proving that he was a workman. Since the burden was on him to prove it as held in the Supreme Court decision in 1993 PLJ page 221 and decision of Sindh High Court 1989 PLC page 309.
3. As an officer in the Bank a show‑cause notice had been issued to the appellant in 1990 for commission of forgery in the Bank record.‑He was not, therefore, considered fit for promotion.
4. Even if he had been a workman, he could not bring his grievance for not being considered for promotion under section 25‑A of the I. R.O. as it is not a right guaranteed or secured under any law or award or entitlement.
5. I find the judgment of the Labour Court to be reasonable and proper and can see no ground for interference. The decision of the Lower Court is, therefore, maintained and this appeal is dismissed: H.B.T./50/LB.S Appeal dismissed.