1995 PLP 460 (PLC)
MUKHTAR ALI Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 460 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUKHTAR ALI Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 460 (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 1995 PLP 460 (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: 1995 PLP 460 (PLC) (MUKHTAR ALI Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellant.
- Masood Ahmed Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1995.
- 2. After hearing the parties, Advocate and Representative I am inclined to agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court that a Bank Officer of Grade‑III under training cannot come within the definition of a worker. He is an Officer of the Bank not doing any clerical or manual duties.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Bank Officer Grade III under training, had challenged his termination of service due to absence from duty by filing grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑‑Such Bank Officer, did not come within definition of a "worker" as given in S.2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but was an officer of Bank not doing any clerical or manual duties‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, had no jurisdiction to entertain his grievance petition.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellant. Masood Ahmed Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1995. The question involved in this appeal is very simple. The appellant was appointed as Bank Officer Grade‑III and sent for training to UBL Training Academy at Karachi. While undergoing the training appellant was arrested in a criminal case and charged with attempt to murder. He was confined in Jail from 16‑9‑1988 to 13‑5‑1989. Meanwhile due to absence from duty the services of the appellant Mukhtar Ali were terminated by U.B.L. On release from Jail Mukhtar Ali gave grievance notice to U.B.L. and filed his grievance petition in the IIIrd Sindh Labour. Court, Karachi. The Labour Court gave the decision that during his training in the U.B.L. Academy the appellant was not engaged as a workman doing clerical or manual work. He was not therefore a worker within the meaning of I.R.O., 1969. His grievance application under section 25‑A was not therefore maintainable.
2. After hearing the parties, Advocate and Representative I am inclined to agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court that a Bank Officer of Grade‑III under training cannot come within the definition of a worker. He is an Officer of the Bank not doing any clerical or manual duties.
3. Under the circumstances the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain his grievance petition. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly', maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2442/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.