1996 PLP 334 (PLC(CS))
Miss FARHAT NAZ Versus Messrs TENZEB ENTERPRISES, KARACHI
| Citation | 1996 PLP 334 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Miss FARHAT NAZ Versus Messrs TENZEB ENTERPRISES, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 334 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 334 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 334 (PLC(CS)) (Miss FARHAT NAZ Versus Messrs TENZEB ENTERPRISES, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khursheed Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(a)
Grievance petition-- Maintainability
Grievance petition filed by employee against oral termination of her services was resisted by employer contending that grievance petition was not maintainable as employer company. employed less than twenty workers
Employee failed to produce any written order of her appointment or even ticket to show the nature of her appointment as permanent, temporary or Badli-- Employee merely made allegations that one hundred workers were working in employer Company, but could not produce or show Attendance Register of workers to prove the same
Labour Court, thus, rightly found that grievance petition was not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 21st December, 1995. Heard Mr. Khursheed Ahmed Siddiqui for the appellant. The grievance petition filed ‑under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 for re‑instatement before the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, has been dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable.
2. The appellant was working in the Garment Factory of the respondent. Her services were orally terminated by the proprietor. She accordingly gave a grievance notice and filed grievance petition.
3. It is the case of the respondent‑company that they are employing less than 20 workers, and the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. is not therefore maintainable.
4. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that she is a worker under the I.R.O. and the Standing Orders Ordinance. She has not been able to produce any written order of appointment and not even the ticket to show the nature of her appointment as permanent, temporary, or Badli. She has merely made allegations that there were 100 workers working in the factory. Even the Attendance Register has not been shown. Under the circumstances it has been rightly held by the Labour Court that her grievance petition is not maintainable. The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. H.B.T./3/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.