1996 PLP 239 (PLC)
HAJI AHMED and 5 others Versus Messrs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED,
| Citation | 1996 PLP 239 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | HAJI AHMED and 5 others Versus Messrs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED, |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 239 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 239 (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 239 (PLC) (HAJI AHMED and 5 others Versus Messrs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellants.
- Iqbal Afridi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S.O. 12
Employees according to order of appointment were employed as temporary employees for a particular project-- Services of employees having been terminated according to agreement signed by them after completion of work for which they were appointed, their termination could not be said mala fide for any Union activities as alleged by employees-- Since employees were employed on a particular project of expansion, question of retaining juniors and terminating services of seniors, would not arise in case.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 12‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Employees according to order of appointment were employed as temporary employees for a particular project‑‑ Services of employees having been terminated according to agreement signed by them after completion of work for which they were appointed, their termination could not be said mala fide for any Union activities as alleged by employees‑‑ Since employees were employed on a particular project of expansion, question of retaining juniors and terminating services of seniors, would not arise in case. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellants. Iqbal Afridi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995. These are six connected appeals of the workers against the order of lst Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for re‑instatement were dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellants were appointed vide order dated 1‑2‑1990 as temporary employees in connection with Expansion Project of the Sui Gas Company and the duration of the employment was to depend on the construction Project requirement in question. By an order dated 4‑9‑1991 as a result of the completion of the Expansion Project and construction of the main line the services of these workers were terminated with effect from 4‑9 1991 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original employment. The termination is obviously under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance under which permanent or temporary employee's services can be terminated provided this is done by an order in writing explicitly stating the reasons for the action taken. In this case the very order of appointment shows that the workers were employed for a particular project and on completion of that Project their services were terminated according to the agreement signed by them. It cannot therefore be said that the termination was mala fide for any union activities. Since the workers were employed on a particular Project of Expansion, the question of retaining the juniors and terminating the services of the seniors does not arise. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeals are dismissed. H:B.T./2572/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.