1994 PLP 638 (PLC)
KHAIRULLAH Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 638 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KHAIRULLAH Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 638 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 638 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 638 (PLC) (KHAIRULLAH Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellant. Iqbal Akhtar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑. Maintainability‑‑‑One of witnesses of employers had produced Muster Roll according to which number of employees with employers was only eight‑‑ Neither witness was tested in cross‑examination on that score nor evidence was produced from employee's side to rebut the same‑‑‑Provision of Standing Orders Ordinance, being not applicable, grievance petition filed by employee against his termination was rightly found not maintainable by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 16th May, 1994. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. 1, Karachi whereby the petition containing the prayer for reinstatement came to be dismissed. The circumstances in which the dispute arose are as follows:‑‑ The petitioner's case was that he was appointed as a Chowkidar on 18‑9‑1988 and his services came to be verbally terminated on 11‑11‑1990. As the grievance notice was unproductive he had therefore filed the petition.
2. The petition came to be resisted on the ground that it was barred by time and that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for reasons more than one was not applicable.
3. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on the short ground that the number of employees with respondent was just 8.
4. Muhammad Farooq the witness for the respondent had produced the Muster Roll according to which the number of the employees with the respondent was only
8. He had not been tested in cross‑examination on that score. There is also no evidence forthcoming from the appellant's side to rebut it. But there is more to it.
5. The respondent's case was that the appellant 's services had been terminated in writing by an order dated 25‑10‑1989. Obviously the appellant had the other version. Even the postal receipt despatching the order is not on the record. However, the appellant in his cross‑examination admits his signature on the appeal against the order of termination filed before the Administrator. According to Muhammad Farooq the appeal was rejected. Patently the theory of verbal termination had been spun out to bring the grievance notice within time. That will be an additional reason against the maintainability of the petition.
6. The appeal is devoid of all merit and stands dismissed. H.B.T/2332/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.