1987 PLP 60 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd.
| Citation | 1987 PLP 60 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IVth Labour Court Sind |
| Bench Members | A.J. Bachani, Labour Court Judge |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd. |
| Primary Law | (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 60 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 60 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IVth Labour Court Sind bench comprising: A.J. Bachani, Labour Court Judge.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 60 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Workman accepting probationary appointment‑‑Effect‑‑Where appointment order was very clear that workman accepted terms as temporary worker, there being no condition of probation that such worker would be absorbed as permanent after completion of‑ probationary tenure, such appointment order in terms and conditions agreed, held, would create estoppel by conduct. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Workman denying signatures on termination letter‑‑Labour Court after comparing signatures of workman placed before Court on documents in connection with grievance petition coming to conclusion that there was exact similarity of signatures on plaint, depositions etc.‑‑In absence of evidence that any compulsion was applied or any fraud had been played or, workman, plea of having permanent status by such workman, held, would not be sustainable‑‑Grievance petition being devoid of merit was dismissed. Nazar Iqbal for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
3. The respondent's version is that he was employed as temporary helper and was not a permanent workman. Respondent has supported the order of termination as signed by him. REASONS
1. That main question before this Court is whether applicant was a permanent workman and not a temporary employee.
2. Applicant Arif has admitted that he was a temporary helper in General Tyre & Rubber Company and also admitted his signature on the appointment letter of 2‑4‑1985. No other letter is produced to show that he was made as permanent. The question is to be examined looking to the context of the appointment order. If the appointment order is very clear that he accepted the terms as temporary workers, there was no condition of probation that he will be absorbed as permanent after completion of probationary tenure. The appointment order in the terms, and conditions agreed creates estoppel by conduct.
3. The next contention was that the services of the applicant were terminated without the written order and also the attitude of Mr. Lakhani towards the workmen was not tolerable. The applicant has gone even to the extent of writing those expression which Lakhani used and the Court reproduce it: ‑
4. With this background the applicant wants to show that this termination in the first place was without any written order and due to misconduct of Lakhani.
5. Respondent on the other hand has examined Arshadullah Khan. He is the member of the C. B. A. union and confirms that termination letter was given in his presence and he had signed it.
6. Applicant has denied his signature on the termination latter. The Court, therefore, now having been placed in this position to find out the similarity of the characteristics of the letter has taken the assistance of the signatures which applicant was putting before the Court. There is exact similarity of the signatures on the plaint, deposition and other documents. Respondent has also pointed to the Court about his signatures on the National Identity Card. The Court has examined this card with minute care and found signatures of applicant on the photostat copy which shown the different resemblance, in other words he has changed the signature subsequently which he has been puttine on the applications, deposition and on the appointment letter.
7. Consequently no evidence is made out that any compulsion was ?done on him or any fraud has been played on the applicant for which he entertains the baseless grievance.
8. Regarding permanent status he has made out no case to show that his services were on probation or he had completed 9 months Court has generally found that in number of cases the orders are issued with the condition of probation and some condition, therefore, each case is to be distinguished, as in this the applicant has no case under section 25‑A, I.R.O.
9. The decision of this Court in Application No. 22 of 1986 distinguishable.
10. Reference is also made to Application No. 135 of 1985 The application is dismissed. A.A????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Grievance petition dismissed