1978 PLP 426 (PLC)
ANOTHER Versus MERCHANT & BROS,, KARACHI AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1978 PLP 426 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal MOHAMMAD ALI AND |
| Parties | ANOTHER Versus MERCHANT & BROS,, KARACHI AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 426 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 426 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal MOHAMMAD ALI AND.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 426 (PLC) (ANOTHER Versus MERCHANT & BROS,, KARACHI AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mohammad Siddique for Respondent No. 1.
- Masood Mirza for Respondent No. 2.
Judgment & Decree
Mohammad Siddique for Respondent No.
1. Masood Mirza for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 28th January 1977. These are two appeals against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the applications filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O. on the ground that the appellants were casual workers and no exception could be taken to their non‑employment.
2. Respondent No. 1 ate the contractors and take the contract from respondent No. 2 for repairing ships and doing the work of riveting, chipping, gas cutting, wire brushing, carpeting, painting and electric wiring, etc. For those jobs workmen are required whenever there is any such to work. The appellants were employed as such. However, it is a case of the appellants that they were permanent workers and their services were illegally terminated without any notice. They served a grievance notice and filed applications in Labour Court.
3. The applications were resisted and it was pleaded that the appellants were casual workers and were employed whenever there was any work for them.
4. Both the parties tendered affidavits of their witnesses who were cross‑examined. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court upheld the contention of the respondent and dismissed the applications.
5. The affidavit of Mohammad Ali, appellant, was treated as evidence of both the cases. He admitted that his only work was to supply the labour at the instance of the respondent No. 1, where there was any work to be done on the ships, which were brought to Karachi Port. He further admitted that when there was no work, no payment was made to any worker. He further admitted that he used to collect the labours for doing the work on the ships and he used to supervise the work of those labourers.
6. From the above‑said admissions made by Mohammad Ali that the appellant, Mohammad Ali, was a petty contractor, whose job was simply to supply the labour; while Saleh Mohammad, appellant, was only a casual worker and his service was required whenever there was work on any ship brought to Karachi Port. It cannot be said that they were permanent workers. Consequently, they are not protected by any provision of law.
7. In the result the appeals are dismissed.