1997 PLP 511 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD WASIM Versus CHAIRMAN, PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI and 3 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP 511 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WASIM Versus CHAIRMAN, PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 511 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 511 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 511 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD WASIM Versus CHAIRMAN, PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1996.
- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii), 25‑A & 49‑‑‑Grievance petition ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Employee who had challenged his termination from service in his grievance petition was a Sub‑Engineer in employer establishment‑‑‑Burden, thus, was on employee to prove that he was a "worker" and not a "civil servant" but employee failed to discharge that burden‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, rightly dismissed grievance petition of employee being not maintainable‑‑ Appeal filed against judgment of Labour Court by an Advocate and not employee personally and that too without obtaining permission from Tribunal to be represented by a counsel, could not be entertained especially when employee was not present at time of hearing of appeal.
- Appellant Muhammad Wasim and his Advocate Mr. M.M. Tariq called absent.
- 4. This appeal was presented by Mr. M.M. Tariq, Advocate and not by the appellant personally. Under section 49 of the I.R.O. the appellant had to ask for permission to be represented by an Advocate. Even on this hearing the appellant is not present, and it is doubtful whether the appellant is staying in Pakistan or he is in Saudi Arabia.
- 5. Mr. M.M. Tariq, Advocate has sent an application for adjournment but the application is signed by Jinnat Ali s/o Zainuddin and not by the Advocate. Jinnat Ali says that he is Munshi of the Advocate but he has no Registration Certificate. This application cannot, therefore, be looked into.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii), 25‑A & 49‑‑‑Grievance petition ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Employee who had challenged his termination from service in his grievance petition was a Sub‑Engineer in employer establishment‑‑‑Burden, thus, was on employee to prove that he was a "worker" and not a "civil servant" but employee failed to discharge that burden‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, rightly dismissed grievance petition of employee being not maintainable‑‑ Appeal filed against judgment of Labour Court by an Advocate and not employee personally and that too without obtaining permission from Tribunal to be represented by a counsel, could not be entertained especially when employee was not present at time of hearing of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1996. Appellant Muhammad Wasim and his Advocate Mr. M.M. Tariq called absent. This appeal has been filed by Muhammad Wasim against the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Wasim was dismissed.
2. Services of Muhammad Wasim were terminated on 16‑7‑1981. The grievance notice has been served by Muhammad Wasim on the Chairman, Port Qasim Authority on 20‑5‑1996 after about 14 years. The grievance petition has, therefore, been dismissed as time‑barred under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. No application for condonation of delay has been moved.
3. It also appears that Muhammad Wasim was a Sub‑Engineer, Port Qasim Authority and he was transferred on deputation to Saudi Arabia in the year 1977. His lien was retained up to 15‑7‑1981. No further extension was granted. He was to report back for duty in Port Qasim Authority. This he failed to do. He was, therefore, removed from service of the Port Qasim Authority in accordance with the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The burden is on the appellant to show that he is a worker and not a civil servant. This burden has not been discharged. So, that the Labour Court ordinarily could not entertain the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 even on merits.
4. This appeal was presented by Mr. M.M. Tariq, Advocate and not by the appellant personally. Under section 49 of the I.R.O. the appellant had to ask for permission to be represented by an Advocate. Even on this hearing the appellant is not present, and it is doubtful whether the appellant is staying in Pakistan or he is in Saudi Arabia.
5. Mr. M.M. Tariq, Advocate has sent an application for adjournment but the application is signed by Jinnat Ali s/o Zainuddin and not by the Advocate. Jinnat Ali says that he is Munshi of the Advocate but he has no Registration Certificate. This application cannot, therefore, be looked into.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./150/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.