1997 PLP 219 (PLC)
Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI Versus ALEEM HAIDER and another
| Citation | 1997 PLP 219 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI Versus ALEEM HAIDER and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 219 (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 1997 PLP 219 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 219 (PLC) (Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI Versus ALEEM HAIDER and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faruq A. Ghani for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4)(a)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Employer Bank had several branches in the country and each branch was to be taken separately for the purpose of application of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Burden lay on employee who had filed grievance petition against employer Bank to show that the unit of branch of employer Bank in which he was working, employed 20 or more workers and that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to his case‑‑‑Employee having failed to discharge that burden, grievance petition filed by employee under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not maintainable. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4)(a)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Employer Bank had several branches in the country and each branch was to be taken separately for the purpose of application of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Burden lay on employee who had filed grievance petition against employer Bank to show that the unit of branch of employer Bank in which he was working, employed 20 or more workers and that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to his case‑‑‑Employee having failed to discharge that burden, grievance petition filed by employee under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not maintainable. Faruq A. Ghani for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 10th April, 1996. Mr. Iftikharul Haque has remained absent. Similar case of Allied Bank v. Syed Ali Shah being Appeal No.KAR‑83 of 1996 was decided on 7‑4‑1996 on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court that the company may have more than one establishments or units and each unit should have 20 or more workers to attract the application of the Standing Orders or the I.R.O. In this case the Allied Bank has several branches in the country and all such branches cannot be considered to be one unit. Each branch is to be taken separately for the purpose of the application of Standing Orders. The p burden lies on the worker to show that the unit employs 20 or more workers and the I.R.O. and the Standing Orders Ordinance have therefore application to his case. Since this has not been proved and objection has been raised that the unit of the Bank is governed by the Shops Act the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. was not maintainable before the Labour Court. The present appeal is also therefore disposed of as the other appeal is being not maintainable. The back benefits deposited by the bank may be refunded to the appellant.
2. In the result the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./110/Lb.S Appeal allowed.