1998 PLP 245 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN Versus Messrs JOURNALIST PUBLICATIONS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1998 PLP 245 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN Versus Messrs JOURNALIST PUBLICATIONS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 245 (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 1998 PLP 245 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 245 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN Versus Messrs JOURNALIST PUBLICATIONS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. Os. 12 & 15-- Termination of service---Validity---Petitioner had claimed that he as an employee had worked under respondent for about two and half years on salary of Rs.3,000 per month, but his services had been terminated orally and without giving any reason for such termination---Case of respondent on the other hand was that petitioner was not employed by it as a workman, but he was procuring advertisements for respondent on contract basis---Burden of proof was on petitioner to show that he was a "workman" within definition of workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance and that his services were terminated in violation of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 but petitioner had failed to discharge that burden---Petitioner could not produce any order in writing appointing him as a workman nor he had summoned any attendance register or a receipt book regarding payment of wages---Petitioner had himself admitted that he was appointed orally and also was terminated orally---No job description was given to show that petitioner was doing any manual or clerical work for respondents---No relationship of employer and workman, thus had been proved between the parties, grievance petition of petitioner was rightly dismissed by Labour Court, in circumstances.
- Nishat Warsi for Appellant.
- Muhammad Humayun for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 1996.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Humayun for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1996. This appeal arises from an order of the Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for reinstatement and back benefit.
2. The appellant claims to be an Advertisement Assistant for Daily Amnan Urdu paper, since 1-6-1987 on a salary of Rs.3,000 per month. His services were terminated on 1-12-1989 orally and without giving any reason.
3. The case of the respondent is that the appellant was not employed by them as a workman; that he was procuring advertisements for the paper on contract basis.
4. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show that he was a workman within the definition of workman in the I.R.O. and his services were terminated in violation of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The appellant has not produced any order in writing appointing him as a workman nor has he summoned any Attendance Register or a Receipt Book regarding payment of wages. He himself admits that he was appointed orally and terminated also orally. There is, therefore, no job description to establish that he was doing any manual or clerical work for the respondent. There is no relationship of employer and workman established in evidence. It is, therefore, possible that the appellant was working part time on contract to procure advertisements for the paper.
5. The appellant had admittedly applied for relief, to N.I.R.C., Karachi. His application was dismissed. He then preferred appeal before Appellate Bench of N.I.R.C. but his appeal was also dismissed. After having exhausted his remedies before the N.I.R.C. he has repeated the petition on the same cause of action before the Labour Court. Since the matter has already been decided by the N.I.R.C. the application before the Labour Court for the same cause of action is not maintainable.
6. Lastly the appellant has claimed back benefits for being out of job but it has been shown in evidence that he is himself editing weekly magazine called People's Review.
7. There is thus no merit in this appeal. The order of the Labour Court is therefore maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./201/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.