1993 PLP 540 (PLC(CS))
NAWAB Versus HOM BLE 3RD SINDH LABOUR COURT AT KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 540 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NAWAB Versus HOM BLE 3RD SINDH LABOUR COURT AT KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 540 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 540 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 540 (PLC(CS)) (NAWAB Versus HOM BLE 3RD SINDH LABOUR COURT AT KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Rafiq Malik for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 31st January, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Relationship of employer and employee‑‑‑Existence of‑‑‑Appellant had alleged that he had been working with respondent for 2 years and when he asked for all benefits due to permanent workers, he was removed from employment‑‑‑Respondent denied that relationship of employer and employee subsisted between them‑‑‑Nothing beyond word was in support of assertion of appellant, while respondent V prove that appellant was not his employee, had produced Wage Register, Return submitted to Labour Directorate and also to Social Security Institution with all names and addresses of his employees and in all such documents appellant nowhere existed‑‑‑Appellant having failed to substantiate his allegation, Court had rightly rejected his claim. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. M. Rafiq Malik for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 31st January, 1993. DECISION The appellant had filed a petition against the respondent for his reinstatement in service. He alleged that he had been working with the latter for 2 years and when he had asked for all the benefits due to a permanent worker he was unceremoniously removed from employment.
2. The respondent inter alia denied any relationship of employer and employee subsistent between them.
3. The appellant had appeared in person. I have carefully gone through the record. TI ere is nothing beyond his word in support of his assertion. On the other hand the respondent had produced the Wage Register, the returns submitted by them to the Labour Directorate and also to the Social Security Institution with all the names and addresses of their employees. It cannot therefore be said that the appellant has put any construction on his allegation. I will therefore uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2154/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.