1996 PLP 224 (PLC)
PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LTD., KARACHI Versus MANZAR HUSSAIN
| Citation | 1996 PLP 224 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LTD., KARACHI Versus MANZAR HUSSAIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 224 (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 1996 PLP 224 (PLC)?
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 224 (PLC) (PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LTD., KARACHI Versus MANZAR HUSSAIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hafiz for Appellant.
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.'
- Date of hearing: 19th November, 1995.
- 3. It has been contended by Abdul Hafii, Advocate for the appellant that respondent Manzar Hussain had been appointed as a Pharmacist of a Chemical Section namely Tablet and Capsules Section. He was B.Sc. in Chemistry and drawing a salary of Rs.3,720 per month. The nature of his duties were managerial and supervisory. He was required to evaluate grievance of the staff to recommend increments of the staff, to initiate disciplinary action against the staff, to supervise the trainees and now employees and to attend Management Courses when deputed by the Company. The respondent had not therefore been considered to be doing any manual or clerical work. He was definitely an officer Incharge of a Section and responsible to the Production Manager. If incidentally he was, checking quality of the products or even looking after the management and control of Tablet and Capsules Section, the main nature of his duties would remain managerial and supervisory. Section 25‑A of the I.R.O. is of very limited scope meant for the grievance of the "workers" and not for the "officers." The grievance application was not therefore maintainable in the case of the respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i) & S.O. I-, -- Grievance petition
Employee whose services were terminated by employer company, but was re-instated by Labour Court, was definitely an officer Incharge of a section of employer company and responsible to production Manager
Employee who was getting a salary of Rs.3,720 p.m, was required to evaluate grievance of staff, to recommend increments of staff, to initiate disciplinary action against staff, to supervise the trainees and new employees and to attend management courses when deputed by employer company for the purpose
If employee incidentally was checking quality of the products or even looking after management and control of his section, main nature of his duties, would remain managerial and supervisory.--Section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 being of very limited scope meant for grievances of the "workers" and not for "offices", grievance petition filed by employee, was not maintainable, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hafiz for Appellant. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.' Date of hearing: 19th November, 1995. This appeal by the Parke Davis & Company arises from the decision of the Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of respondent Manzar Hussain was allowed and he was granted re‑instatement with all the back benefits.
2. The facts in "brief are that the respondent was working with the appellant Company as a Pharmacist since the year 1981. On 12‑1‑1986 the respondent s services were terminated by order in writing but without assigning any reason. He filed grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Court held that the respondent was workman and since the Order 12(3)' of the Standing Orders Ordinance violated by not assigning any reasons his termination was bad. The Labour Court therefore directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back benefits. Against this order the Pharmaceutical Company has preferred this appeal.
3. It has been contended by Abdul Hafii, Advocate for the appellant that respondent Manzar Hussain had been appointed as a Pharmacist of a Chemical Section namely Tablet and Capsules Section. He was B.Sc. in Chemistry and drawing a salary of Rs.3,720 per month. The nature of his duties were managerial and supervisory. He was required to evaluate grievance of the staff to recommend increments of the staff, to initiate disciplinary action against the staff, to supervise the trainees and now employees and to attend Management Courses when deputed by the Company. The respondent had not therefore been considered to be doing any manual or clerical work. He was definitely an officer Incharge of a Section and responsible to the Production Manager. If incidentally he was, checking quality of the products or even looking after the management and control of Tablet and Capsules Section, the main nature of his duties would remain managerial and supervisory. Section 25‑A of the I.R.O. is of very limited scope meant for the grievance of the "workers" and not for the "officers." The grievance application was not therefore maintainable in the case of the respondent.
4. The order of the lower Court is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed H.B.T./2562/Lb.S Appeal allowed.