2012 PLP 114 (PLC)
HEAD HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MCB BANK, LAHORE and others Versus MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD and others
| Citation | 2012 PLP 114 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman |
| Parties | HEAD HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MCB BANK, LAHORE and others Versus MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 114 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 114 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 114 (PLC) (HEAD HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MCB BANK, LAHORE and others Versus MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Parvez I. Mir for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 8th February, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 33 & 47(5)
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i), S.O.15
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11
Dismissal from service and compulsory retirement
Application for rejection of petition
Test
Employees serving in the bank, had been awarded penalty of dismissal/compulsory retirement after long service
During pendency of grievance petition filed by the employees, counsel for bank moved application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of grievance petition, contending that employees not being workmen, their grievance petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Acid test for determining the status of a workman, was the nature of his duties, but where there were conflicting claims of the parties, then such issue could be determined by recording of evidence and not otherwise
In the present case, neither copies of the application filed under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. nor their replies as well as the copies of the grievance petitions and their replies had been filed for proper appreciation of the cases
Application for rejection of grievance petition, was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court on the grounds that factual controversy could not be resolved without recording evidence and that revision petitions were not properly documented.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).
The captioned revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 30-11-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala whereby the applications of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. have been dismissed. Since identical questions of law and facts have been raised as such it would be convenient to dispose of all the three revision petitions through this single judgment.
2. Essential fact of the cases for the disposal are that all the three respondents were bank employees and had been awarded penalty of dismissal/compulsory retirement after long service. During pendency of the grievance petitions filed by the respondents, the learned counsel for the present petitioners moved applications under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that they are not workmen and as such the grievance petitions may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
3. The applications were vigorously contested by the respondent and ultimately the learned Labour Court held that prima facie there was no indication in the record that they have ever served in the managerial capacity and as such this point can only be determined by recording of evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that all the three respondents have served in administrative/supervisory capacity as such the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the real facts and has erred while dismissing the applications. Besides it was also claimed that in identical case of Waheed v. MCB the learned Labour Court has non-suited the grievance petitioner on the ground that he was holding administrative position as such the court has departed from the view with a mala fide intention.
5. Preliminary arguments have been heard.
6. I am afraid learned counsel for the petitioners has not done justice to the learned Labour Court in attributing mala fides to him as it is obvious that in Waheed's case it was clearly admitted that he was a Credit Manager, therefore, the order was perfectly in consonance with law when he was non-suited. In these petitions however, the court has clearly held that there is no indication that they have ever held any managerial post, therefore, there was no comparison between Waheed's case and in the present cases.
7. Acid test for determining the status of a workman is the nature of his duties but where there are conflicting claims of the parties then the said issue can only be determined by recording of evidence and not otherwise. Attribution of mala fides to say the least is shocking because it has been backed with no cogent reasons. Even otherwise, all the three revision petitions appear to be incompetent inasmuch as neither copies of the applications under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. nor their replies as well as the copies of the grievance petitions and their replies have also not been filed for proper appreciation of the cases. 8.(?) In this view of the matter, the revision petitions merit dismissal in limine on the grounds:
(1) The factual controversy cannot be resolved without recording of evidence and, (2) The revisions are not properly documented. H.B.T./18/PLT Revision dismissed