1996 PLP 677 (PLC(CS))
Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus TATHIR HUSSAIN SHAH
| Citation | 1996 PLP 677 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus TATHIR HUSSAIN SHAH |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 677 (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 1996 PLP 677 (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 677 (PLC(CS)) (Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus TATHIR HUSSAIN SHAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 1st February, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 2(i)
Not scales of pay that determine whether a person is a worker or officer, but is the nature of duties performed by him which would determine that question. Abdus Samad for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 2(i)‑‑‑Worker‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Not scales of pay that determine whether a person is a worker or officer, but is the nature of duties performed by him which would determine that question. Abdus Samad for Applicant. Date of hearing: 1st February, 1996. The Labour Court held that the respondent designated as Assistant Manager still worked on the lathe machine and he was a worker. Admittedly the order of termination did not contain any reasons for termination as required under Order 12(3). The termination was, therefore, alleged to be illegal.
2. Mr. Abdus Samad has argued that under the Rules the employees up to Pay Group‑VII will be designated as workers and those officers scales would be regarded as officers, but it is not the Scales of Pay, that determines whether the person is worker or officer. It is the nature of the duties performed by him that will determine this question. Admittedly the respondent in this case was working on the computerised Lathe Machine, a very sophisticated job, for which he as paid the officer's pay. But all the same he would be a skilled worker and as such he would be governed by the I.R.O. and Standing Orders Ordinance.
3. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./63/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.