1995 PLP 286 (PLC)
MANZOOR ALI Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. VIII, LARKANA and 3 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP 286 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MANZOOR ALI Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. VIII, LARKANA and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 286 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 286 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 286 (PLC) (MANZOOR ALI Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. VIII, LARKANA and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed Pathan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑‑Public Health Engineering Department; whether a factory‑‑‑Employee of such department, whether a workman or a civil servant‑‑‑Employee working in Public Health Engineering Department, had challenged his termination by filing grievance petition before Labour Court which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction‑‑‑Public Health Engineering Department by no stretch of imagination could be included within definition of factory as claimed by employee, but same was a Government Department and employee working in that department would come within definition of civil servant under Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) and terms and conditions of his service would be governed under the said Act‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances had rightly found that his grievance petition was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Majeed Pathan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1995. Heard Mr. Abdul Majid Pathan for the appellant. The services of the appellant were terminated by the Public Health Engineering Division, Larkana. The appellant served a grievance notice and subsequently filed an application under section 25‑A before the Labour Court, Larkana. The Labour Court held that provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to the applicant and he accordingly dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant admits that the applicant was a Government servant. He would therefore be governed by the Civil Servant Act unless he came under the definition of workman under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. It has been argued by Mr. Abdul Majid Pathan that Public Health Engineering Department is a factory and therefore the appellant's case comes under the exception provided in the Ordinance. Under the Ordinance the factory has been defined as any premises where manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power. By no stretch of imagination can Public Health Engineering Department be included within the definition of factory, such Government servants come within the definition of civil servants under the Civil Servants Act and their terms and conditions of service are governed under that Act. Under the circumstances the Labour Court rightly held that the application was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. This appeal is therefore summarily dismissed. H.B.T./2405/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.