1996 PLP 678 (PLC(CS))
DILAWAR KHAN ` Versus Messrs SOGEA COMPANY PAKISTAN BRANCH,
| Citation | 1996 PLP 678 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DILAWAR KHAN ` Versus Messrs SOGEA COMPANY PAKISTAN BRANCH, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 678 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 678 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1996 PLP 678 (PLC(CS)) (DILAWAR KHAN ` Versus Messrs SOGEA COMPANY PAKISTAN BRANCH,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Employee sustained injury in his eye for which he made application under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to the Commissioner
Pending proceedings on that application, services of employee were terminated
Employee whose application for compensation was allowed and was granted amount less than the one he claimed in his application filed grievance petition to which he claimed that he should have been paid total dues of compensation by employer
In case any balance was due to employee, he should have moved proper forum under Payment of Wages Act, 1936-- Grievance petition filed by employee under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court being not competent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Employee sustained injury in his eye for which he made application under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to the Commissioner‑‑‑Pending proceedings on that application, services of employee were terminated‑‑‑Employee whose application for compensation was allowed and was granted amount less than the one he claimed in his application filed grievance petition to which he claimed that he should have been paid total dues of compensation by employer‑‑‑In case any balance was due to employee, he should have moved proper forum under Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑ Grievance petition filed by employee under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court being not competent. Gohar Iqbal for Appellant. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1996. The appellant was employed as a carpenter with the respondent company for the project of Jinnah Terminal at the Karachi Airport. Pending the work at the project the appellant sustained injury in his eye for which he made application under Workmen's Compensation Act to the Commissioner., Pending these proceedings, the appellant was given a notice of termination of his service simpliciter for the reason that the project for which he had been employed was nearly complete and his services were no longer required and they were terminated on that account, and that he should receive all his legal dues. Meanwhile his application for compensation on account of eye injury was also granted and he was allowed Rs.6,300 by way of compensation.
2. Mr. Gohar Iqbal has argued that the appellant has not been paid his "total" dues in view of the compensation, that the respondent company had to pay to the appellant and the appellant has this grievance. In case there is balance of any dues payable to the appellant, he should have moved the proper forum under Payment of Wages Act but this petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. did not lie. It has, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the Labour Court.
3. There are no grounds for interference with the decision of the Labour Court and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./61/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.