1987 PLP 161 (PLC)
Messrs NATIONAL TANKER COMPANY Ltd. Versus SALEEM HAYAT KHAN
| Citation | 1987 PLP 161 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs NATIONAL TANKER COMPANY Ltd. Versus SALEEM HAYAT KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 161 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 161 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 161 (PLC) (Messrs NATIONAL TANKER COMPANY Ltd. Versus SALEEM HAYAT KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muneer Alvi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Shafique Usmani for Appellant. Muneer Alvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1986. This is an appeal against the order of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated 26‑5‑1984.
2. The appellant is a Private Limited Company which owes and charters tankers for transportation of oil/bulk cargo. The respondent, Saleem Hayat Khan was employed as an outdoor clerk‑cum‑‑typist. He was employed in the formative phase of the appellant company on ad hoc basis which need having been obviated his services were no longer required and hence the appellant was constrained to consider termination of the respondent's services as simpliciter. Letter of termination was issued on 25‑8‑1983, which was duly received by the respondent. Subsequently, a cheque for the notice pay and other dues of respondent was also forwarded to the respondent which was duly received by him. On 26‑10‑1983, he served a notice wherein he demanded re‑instatement and back benefits. On 16‑11‑1983, the respondent was communicated the reply of it. The termination was simpliciter and has not been preceded by any misconduct of workman or unsatisfactory work, by him.
3. I have heard the learned counsels of the parties.
4. The respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis as such was not a permanent workman and was no longer required by the appellant Company, hence, his services were terminated and a cheque for the A notice pay and other dues of respondent was given to the respondent. Since he was not a permanent workman his termination simpliciter was quite in order 1980 P L C 353 supports mainly the appellants. There is no stigma or malice on the part of the appellant Company.
5. There is no application for promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant on which it is stated by the respondent that the D. M. (F) had highly recommended him. Nothing has been brought on record. The learned counsel of the respondent has argued that the respondent was a permanent workman as he has served for 14 months. Even, though he worked for 14 months, he was no longer required by the appellant Company and, therefore, his services were terminated a termination simpliciter. I find, in this matter, the case of the appellant Company is stronger and hereby set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.