1979 PLP 324 (PLC)
FAZAL MUHAMMAD Versus KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS
| Citation | 1979 PLP 324 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Chairman |
| Parties | FAZAL MUHAMMAD Versus KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 324 (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 1979 PLP 324 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 324 (PLC) (FAZAL MUHAMMAD Versus KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Mirsa for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑‑Appellant retired on attaining age of superannuation but two years later re‑employed for a period of three years on contract basis‑Contract period having expired, appellant's services terminated Held : Contract period having expired, appellant could lay no claim to continuance in service‑Services of appellant having terminated on 17‑11‑1975 and application under S. 25‑A being filed on 5‑3‑1976, i.e., three and a half months after cause of action and no application for condonation of delay having been filed, application also barred by time. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. Masood Mirsa for Respondent. This an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent since 1961. On attaining the age of superannuation, which was 55 years, he was retired on 20‑5‑1970. However, he was re‑employed on contract basis on 17‑8‑1972 for a period of 3 years and his service was terminated on 17‑11‑1976, i.e., nearly 3 months after the period of contract was over. He felt aggrieved and approached the Labour Court on 5‑3‑1976. The applica tion was resisted and it was pleaded that the application was not maintainable as the appellant had already been retired on attaining the age of superannua tion and he was re‑employed much later on contract basis and his services were terminated according to the terms of the contract.
3. On the assessment of the evidence, the Labour Court dismissed the application on two grounds. The first ground was that the period of contract was over and, therefore, the appellant had no claim to continue in service. The second was that the application was batted by the limitation.
4. I have heard the appellant in person and I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It has been fully established that he attained the age of 55 years in 1970 and, therefore, he was lawfully retired. It was only 2 years later that he was re‑employed for a period of 3 years on contract basis and that period had already expired and so he has no claim to continue in service. Secondly, the application was hopelessly time‑barred. The services of the appellant were terminated on 17‑11‑1975, whereas the applica tion under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed on 5‑3-1976, i.e., 3 months after the cause of action. There was no application for condonation of delay. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.