1992 PLP 310 (PLC)
Syed KHURSHID HYDER RIZVI Versus Messrs URDU ACADEMY, SINDH
| Citation | 1992 PLP 310 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed KHURSHID HYDER RIZVI Versus Messrs URDU ACADEMY, SINDH |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 310 (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 1992 PLP 310 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 310 (PLC) (Syed KHURSHID HYDER RIZVI Versus Messrs URDU ACADEMY, SINDH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S_ 1(4)(a)
Grievance petition-- Maintainability of
Number of workers in establishment was below 20
Employee could not establish by any evidence that establishment had more than 20 workers
Provision of Standing Orders Ordinance VI of 1968 being not applicable to case of employee, his grievance petition was rightly dismissed by Labour Court. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 25th November, 1991. The dispute between the parties unfortunately has a chequered history.
2. The appellant states to have been working as Accountant with the Urdu Academy Sindh since 1955. It appears that he was removed from service sometime in 1986 and he had preferred an application before the Labour Court against the said order of removal. The application came to be dismissed and an appeal was preferred which was allowed. The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court of Sindh which was dismissed and Leave to Appeal was granted by the Supreme Court. However, in this order the back benefits were not to he paid till the final decision.
3. The respondents in consequence had reinstated the appellant but kept him idle. He was, however, retired on 30-10-1989 on the ground that he had attained the age of superannuation. This led to a petition filed before the Labour Court.
4. The appellant was the sole witness on his behalf and in spite of the fact that his allegation was that the Academy had more than 20 workers no particulars could be furnished not to say substantiated. There was no support forthcoming from any quarters whatsoever. On the other hand, it appears that Babul Islam Printing Press and Urdu Academy are separately registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969.
5. It was held in Abdul Razzaq v. Messrs Ihsan Sons Limited and 2 others in Civil Appeal No. 351-K of 1986; that the Head Office and the Factory should be treated as separate establishments. It has been duly proved that the number of the workers in the Urdu Academy is below than 20. -Under the circumstances, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not attracted. In that case the Labour Court properly dismissed the petition.
6. The learned Presiding Officer has also considered that under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, there could be no retirement unless there was an agreement or settlement as to the age of retirement, but that need not tarry us, as it does not come within the scope of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1998/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.