1977 PLP 387 (PLC)
AYUB KHAN Versus MESSRS MUSLIM CONSTRUCTORS LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1977 PLP 387 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AYUB KHAN Versus MESSRS MUSLIM CONSTRUCTORS LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 387 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 387 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 387 (PLC) (AYUB KHAN Versus MESSRS MUSLIM CONSTRUCTORS LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masood Sheryar for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
S. 2(xxviii)-"Workman"-Person supplying labour on payment --Not doing any work himself-A patty contractor--Not a workman. S. M. Kohistani for Appellants. Masood Sheryar for Respondents. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed under section 25-A, I. R. O. 2. The appellant was working with the respondent which was a Construction company. On 26th June, 1975 be was not allowed to resume his duties. He, therefore, approached the Labour Court after serving grievance notice. The application was resisted and various objections were taken. The Labour Court accepted three preliminary objections and dismissed the application. 3. The only point which I would like to deal in this appeal is whether the appellant was a workman. The Labour Court bad held that the appellant was not a workman but a petty contractor supplying labour to the respondent. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to disagree with him. Admittedly, the appellant was supplying labour and was receiving payment. He was, therefore, a petty contractor or at best a Jamadar as admitted by him. He himself was not doing any work. 4. In result the appeal is dismissed.