1994 PLP 51 (PLC)
ISHAQUDDIN SIDDIQUE Versus M/s. PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 51 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ISHAQUDDIN SIDDIQUE Versus M/s. PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 51 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 51 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 51 (PLC) (ISHAQUDDIN SIDDIQUE Versus M/s. PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khadim Hussain for Appellant.
- Muhammad Humayun for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Bonus‑‑‑Entitlement to‑‑‑Slip for payment of bonus for certain amount given to employee was withdrawn later on by employers because of pendency of grievance petition filed by employee against employers in the Court‑‑ Employee stated that amount subsequently paid to him as bonus was less than the amount mentioned in earlier slip which was withdrawn‑‑‑Employee filed grievance petition which was resisted by employers on various grounds including maintainability of petition‑‑‑Question of status of employee as a workman already determined in previous petition filed by employee‑‑ Employee having been determined to be serving in Grade‑VI bonus offered to him subsequently was proper according to his grade and called for no interference‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Humayun for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1993. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dismissing the petitioner's grievance application. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner was working as a Typist in the State Engineering Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., from where his services were transferred with the respondents in November, 1988. The latter on 28‑3‑1990 had announced bonus at 3‑1/2 basic pay. The version of the petitioner is that he had been given a payment slip for the amount of Rs.6,745 but the same had been withheld because of the pendency of a grievance application No. 29 of 1990 filed by him before the Labour Court.
3. As the amount he was entitled to i.e. Rs.6,745 was not being paid to him, but only Rs.5,845, he had sent a grievance notice and thereafter filed the grievance petition.
4. The claim was resisted by the respondent on various grounds including the maintainability of the application.
5. The Labour Court found that as the question of his status as a workman had already been determined in the previous petition referred to above, it did not need any fresh adjudication. However, he had been offered the proper bonus open to a workman of Grade‑VI and therefore the petition was dismissed.
6. Though it was not admitted unreservedly that the pay slip for Rs. 6,745 had been issued yet there is no gainsaying the fact that it was issued prior to the decision in the grievance application No. 29 of 1990. In the said decision the appellant was found to be a workman in Grade‑VI. There is hardly any material available on the record to say how he is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.6,745, in the altered circumstances.
7. I do not, therefore, see any reason to arrive at any other conclusion than the one reached by the Labour Court. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2239/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.