1994 PLP 82 (PLC)
SAJID ALI and others Versus M/s. HINO PAK MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI and others
| Citation | 1994 PLP 82 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAJID ALI and others Versus M/s. HINO PAK MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 82 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 82 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 82 (PLC) (SAJID ALI and others Versus M/s. HINO PAK MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellants.
- M.L. Shahani for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Relationship of employer and employee‑‑‑Proof of existence‑‑‑Petitioners claiming to be employees of the company had alleged that their services had been terminated verbally when they made a move for formation of a Trade Union in the organisation‑‑‑Employers in their written reply had denied alleged relationship of employers and employees between parties contending that petitioners were employees of its contractor‑‑‑Petitioners in their cross‑examination had admitted their signatures on letters of appointment and letters of termination of service from contractor‑‑‑Grievance petitions of petitioners were rightly dismissed by Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
M.L. Shahani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1993. DECISION These two appeals from the composite order of the Labour Court NO.III dismissing the petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. arise in the following circumstances: The case as set up by the petitioners was that they had made a move for the formation of a trade union and the respondent whose employees they had been, apprised of this situation forthwith terminated their services verbally on the 30th of May, 1988. This had culminated in the filing of a petition.
2. The respondents in their written reply denied the averment in regard to the alleged relationship. It was stated on their behalf that the petitioners were the employees of their contractors namely Alkhair Services.
3. These petitions were dismissed by the Labour Court as the appellants I in their cross‑examination had admitted their signatures on the letters of appointment and the letters of termination of service from M/s. Alkhair Services, as testified by Saeed Hamid.
4. This cuts at the very root of the case and no fault can be found with the impugned order.
5. As a result I will dismiss these appeals. H.B.T./2235/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.