1984 PLP 1100 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ALI Versus MILLS MANAGER NATIONAL EMBRIODERY MILLS LTD. FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1100 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI Versus MILLS MANAGER NATIONAL EMBRIODERY MILLS LTD. FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1100 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1100 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1100 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ALI Versus MILLS MANAGER NATIONAL EMBRIODERY MILLS LTD. FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Arij for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 2 (i)-"Workman"-Chowkidar discharging watch and ward duties-Not a workman-Dismissal of grievance petition against termination of service of such Chowkidar by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1.969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3). Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
S. 2 (i)-"Workman"-Chowkidar discharging watch and ward duties-Not a workman-Dismissal of grievance petition against termination of service of such Chowkidar by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1.969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3). Appellant in person. S. M. Arij for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1983. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 14th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby holding that the appellant was not a workman and that service of grievance notice had not been established, the appellant's petition for his re-instatement was dismissed. 2. The appellant is a Chowkidar discharging his duties as a watch and ward. Such an employee has neither to do any manual nor clerical work. His duty is to remain present to look after the premises whereas according to the definition of workman given in S. 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 only that employee is a workman who does manual' or clerical skilled or unskilled worker. The appellant did not produce an iota of evidence regarding his duties. Even in his statement he did not say what work he used to do. 3. The service of grievance notice too was not proved. Neither any postal receipt nor any receipt of the employee of the respondent to whom the grievance notice may have been delivered was produced. No oral evidence too is on the record. Even the appellant did not say that he had in any manner served the grievance notice. No copy of grievance notice is on the record. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified 1n dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. 4. As a result of the above, the appeal is without any force and is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.