1993 PLP 774 (PLC(CS))
S. RASHID ALI and 24 others Versus M/S. MARINE SERVICES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 774 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | S. RASHID ALI and 24 others Versus M/S. MARINE SERVICES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 774 (PLC(CS))?
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 774 (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 774 (PLC(CS)) (S. RASHID ALI and 24 others Versus M/S. MARINE SERVICES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Appellants.
- Muhammad Humayun for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(a)‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑ Employer was a stevedors firm whose business was to load and unload cargo of their customers from abroad the vessels at Karachi and all such work was done by workers who were not employees of stevedore‑‑‑Employees filing grievance petitions against their unwarranted removal from service, could not establish that they were employees of employers or that they were permanently attached to them‑‑‑Employees became entitled to get work through Board as a system of rotation of gangs and tondals and serangs who were wedded to those gangs‑‑‑Even otherwise employers had employed only five workers in their organisation‑‑‑Provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, being not applicable to case of employees, grievance petition filed by employees against their removal from service, was rightly dismissed by Trial Court, in circumstances. Veera and another v. Kazi & Kazi Ltd. PLD 1990 SC 435 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(d) .................................. (e) ..................................... (i) determine the wages, allowances and other conditions of service and refix the guaranteed minimum wages in a month after review; (g) fix the rate of levy under sub‑clause (i) of clause 50; (h) ...................................... (i) ..................................... (j) . (k) ...................................... (l) .. (m) endeavour to settle disputes about which a request for adjudication has been made by the parties concerned etc. etc. Clause 35 reads as under: 35.Obligations of registered dock workers.‑‑‑(1) Every registered dock worker shall be deemed to have accepted the obligations of this Scheme. (2) A registered dock worker in Register I, who is available for work, shall be deemed to be; in the employment of the Board. (3) A registered dock worker in Register I, who is available for work at the call stands or control points, shall not engage himself for employment under a registered employer unless he is allocated to that employer by the Administrative Body. (4) .. (5) .. Mention may also be made of clause 41 which reads as under;
41. Pay in respect of an employment or under‑employment.‑‑‑(1) Subject to the conditions set out in this clause and clause 42, when in any wage period a registered dock worker in Register I is available for work but is not given employment of full employment, he shall be entitled to receive from the Board such amounts as may be admissible to him under clauses 29, 30 and 32.
8. As to be found in the case of Veera and another v. Kazi & Kazi Ltd. (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 435), under the new scheme dock workers were neither the employees of the stevedors nor were they permanently attached to them. They become entitled to ~ get work through the Board as a system of rotation of gangs and Tindals and Serangs who were wedded to these gangs
9. Admittedly none of the appellants have produced a shred of a paper to show that they were employees .of the respondents. All that they could manage was to produce entry passes permitting ingress and egress to the KPT Area where the West Wharf is situated. The evidence in the case has so much to wish. Muhammad Ali, Pass Issuing Officer has very clearly stated that the possession of the entry pass, which is valid for a few months can never be conclusive proof of employment. Be that as it may it is difficult to conceive every stevedors it can easily be understood that there must be scores of them operating at the Port should be retaining a hords of mechanics, electricians etc. to help them in their operation. Muhammad Ali had brought the file containing the applications from the respondent company with requests for issuing passes in respect of their employees which has been brought on the record as Exh. A.W.
2. That shows only a strength of five persons whose names also are to be found there.
10. This being the position the question of the application of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance does not arise as there are only five workers of the respondents only, who are working at the Wharf.
11. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss these appeals.. H.B.T./2211/Lb.S Appeals dismissed,