1984 PLP 1434 (PLC(CS))
OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER Versus KALOO AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1434 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER Versus KALOO AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1434 (PLC(CS))?
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 1984 PLP 1434 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1434 (PLC(CS)) (OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER Versus KALOO AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Altaf Hussain for Appellants.
- Date of hearing : 17th April, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
S. O. 1. (b)--Workman--Termination-Workman initially appoin ted for 88 days and after gaps of 4 days again employed for further 88 days-Rules not supporting his case for permanent employment -Termination of appointment-Right can be claimed only if gua ranteed or secured by law, award or settlement--Termination of appointment, held, rightly ordered.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)
S. O. 1. (b)--Workman--Termination-Workman initially appoin ted for 88 days and after gaps of 4 days again employed for further 88 days-Rules not supporting his case for permanent employment -Termination of appointment-Right can be claimed only if gua ranteed or secured by law, award or settlement--Termination of appointment, held, rightly ordered. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Appellants. Date of hearing : 17th April, 1982. As question of facts and law involve in the two appeals captioned above are alike, they are being decided together through this single judgment. 2. Abdus Sattar was a Chaukidar and Kaloo a Mali. Both of them were shown to have been initially employed for 88 days on their applica tions and after gaps of 4 or 5 days again they were employed for further 88 days, up to the last when their services were finally terminated. Both of them challenged the order of their termination before the learned Lower Court claiming to be permanent workman posted on permanent posts. Definition of workman is given in Standing Orders 1 clause `b' which reads as under:
"A permanent workman is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last for more than 9 months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock-out, strike (not an illegal lock-out or strike) or involuntarily closure of establishment." The representative appearing for the appellant union has admitted that the rule is the same but he says that the workers are residing at headquarter and if they take residence at the site, they will be put to great inconveni ence, because after the completion of work at one place, they are made to work at other places and they cannot keep their residence away from the headquarter. The appellant can claim that right only which has been guaranteed or secured by any law, award or settlement. Since the rules do not support their case, there is no right guaranteed to them. The petition, in these circumstances, was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. M. Y. M.