1987 PLP 191 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD BANARAS Versus Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS Ltd.
| Citation | 1987 PLP 191 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Ist Labour Court Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghous Muhammad, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BANARAS Versus Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS Ltd. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 191 (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 1987 PLP 191 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Ist Labour Court Sind bench comprising: Ghous Muhammad, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 191 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD BANARAS Versus Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS Ltd.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M.Yaqoob for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 32(1-A)--Grievance petition--Removal from service- Worker, challenging his removal from service, stating that an industrial dispute was pending under S.32(1-A) of Ordinance and, therefore, impugned order was illegal and mala fide--Evidence of employer as against evidence of worker, going unchallenged and despite ample opportunity given to worker and his representative employer's witnesses were not cross-examined--Worker failing to prove mala fide on part of employer or that impugned order was illegal--Petition dismissed. Saleem Raza, Representative for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
The applicant in his application under section 25-A, of the I.R.0., 1969 has prayed for re-instatement in service with full back benefits. 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case as disclosed by the applicant are as follows.
3. That he was a permanent worker of the respondents since December, 1980 and was working as quality Control man in Molding Department. On 20th October, 1985 he was removed from service allegedly without any justification and contrary to the provisions of Labour Laws. There was also an industrial dispute pending under section 32 (1-A) of the I.R.O., 1969. Hence the impugned order is mala fide and illegal.
4. The case of the respondent in their reply statement is that the applicant was employed as Inspector Quality Control in the Molding it Department. Since late 1984 the respondents have been facing various d problems and crisis and laid of the workers five times from 10-11-1984 b to 23-11-1984, 25-11-1984 to 8-12-1984, 10-12-1984 to 23-12-1984 of 25-12-1984 to 8-1-1985 and 10-1-1985 to 23-1-1985. The respondents o also carried out retrenchment of about 59 workers, on 24-1-1985. Thus, p according to the respondent the retrenchment had nothing to do with o the trade unions or trade union activities of the workers. The n retrenchment letter dated 20-10-1985 which the applicant had challenged as illegal also contains the detailed reasons for the retrenchment. The respondents also replied to the grievance notice dated 12-11-1985 and b they admitted that the last demand dated 18-7-1984 submitted by the n C.B.A. Union could not be settled due to financial crisis, therefore, the union took the industrial dispute to the Labour Court in November, r 1984 and the matter is pending for disposal at final stages.
5. The sole point which requires determination in this case is: (i) Whether the impugned order is mala fide and illegal?
6. The applicant in his affidavit in evidence supported the contents of his application, but in cross-examination he denied the suggestion that there was lay off during the period from November, 1984 to January, t 1985. He admitted that in January, 1985 59 workers were retrenched by the respondent. As against the evidence of the applicant, the evidence produced by the respondent has gone unchallenged. They filed affidavit IA. of Syed Mohiuddin Qadri, but in spite of ample opportunity given to the applicant and his learned representative, the respondent's witness was not cross-examined. In these circumstances, I see no reason to disbelieve the version of the respondents and the applicant has also failed to discharge his burden of proving the alleged mala fide or that the impugned order was illegal, therefore, I find no force in this application and, it is dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed