1993 PLP 124 (PLC)
ABRAR AHMED KHAN Versus THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FIFTH SINDH LABOUR COURT,
| Citation | 1993 PLP 124 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABRAR AHMED KHAN Versus THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FIFTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 124 (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 1993 PLP 124 (PLC)?
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 124 (PLC) (ABRAR AHMED KHAN Versus THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FIFTH SINDH LABOUR COURT,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellant.
- Rehan Aqeel for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th September, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance application against dismissal from service‑‑‑Appellant seeking relief against respondent could not prove to be in its service; he was in fact, proved to be the personal employee of respondent's Assistant Manager‑‑ Appellant also could not produce any appointment letter or dismissal order from the respondent‑‑‑Appellant having failed to prove to be in the employment of the respondent was not entitled to any relief‑‑‑Appellant's grievance application was thus, rightly dismissed by Labour Court. Yasmeen Kausar v. M/s. Midway House 1985 PLC 785 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Rehan Aqeel for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1992. This appeal from the order of the Labour Court No. V at Karachi dismissing the petition of the appellant under section 25‑A of I.R.O., arises in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner alleged that's he was working with the respondent company as a `Driver' since 1983. However, he was not issued any appointment letter or identity card and was also kept deprived of other benefits given to the other employees. When he had remonstrated about these short measures being given to him, he was removed from service verbally. He had sent a grievance notice which was replied to. As he was not taken back, he sought his remedy from the Labour Court.
3. The respondents in their "Written Reply" asserted that the petitioner was in the personal employment of Mr. Chughtai, an Assistant Manager of the respondents‑Company. The rest of the allegations came to be denied.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents at all.
5. The appellant alongwith the petition had himself filed a receipt which clearly shows that he was a Driver working for Mr. Jehangir Chughtai in the latter's personal capacity and was getting pay from him. Though he states to have been denied all the benefits which emanate from the company in favour of the workers, on his own showing he had not complained for the same to the Labour Department or any body else for full seven years. He had no appointment letter or any other document to prove that had anything to do with the respondent‑Company. He has only produced a "Sincere Services Certificate" but that is not on behalf of the company.
6. It was for the appellant to prove that he was in the employment of the company and that he has failed to do. Mr. Rehan Aqeel referred to some citations, but that is hardly necessary to make a mention about.
7. Mr. Gohar Iqbal, however, contended that the case of the appellant had gone totally unchallenged. I am afraid it does not depict the whole truth. The respondent had filed a "Written Reply" in which all the allegations put forward in the case had been denied. The appellant was also tested in cross- examination. The facts that the respondent did not put some body into the witness‑box was for them to decide. Mr. Rehan Aqeel in that context has referred to a judgment of the Sindh High Court namely Yasmeen Kausar v. M/s. Midway House 1985 PLC 785 and that is on all fours with his contention.
8. The case of the appellant stands disproved by the very receipt placed on the record alongwith the petition.
9. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. A.A./2098/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.