1994 PLP 601 (PLC)
MEHMOOD ALI Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 601 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MEHMOOD ALI Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 601 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 601 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 601 (PLC) (MEHMOOD ALI Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellant.
- Abdus Samad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Employee and co‑employee both were employed in same year ‑‑‑Co‑employee who was employed as welder had earned Grade‑VII of pay while employee who was employed as helper had earned Grade‑VI‑‑ Representation made by employee to the effect that his case should be put at par with that of co‑employee with regard to promotion was rejected on ground that claim of employee was not based on any right, settlement of award‑‑‑Question of promotion and pay scale as presented by employee was misconceived as same not being based on any right, settlement or award, could not be subject‑matter of grievance petition filed by employee.
Judgment & Decree
Abdus Samad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1994. The appellant and one Abdul Razzaq had been employed by the respondents in the year 1975. Abdul Razzaq had earned Grade‑VII of pay by order dated 26‑10‑1989 while the appellant found himself in Pay Scale No. VI. He had, therefore, made a representation which came to be rejected. He had thereupon sent a grievance notice which did not bear any fruit. He had then filed the petition before the Labour Court. .
2. The Labour Court No. IV, Karachi dismissed the petition holding‑ that it was time‑barred and otherwise too the claim was not based on right, settlement, or award.
3. I do not agree with the finding in regard to the time‑bar because it was a mere representation canvassing his case to be put on par with that of Abdul Razzaq. And if the limitation were to be computed from the date of rejection of the representation which was 24‑12‑1990, the grievance notice being‑sent on 13‑1‑1991 and the petition being filed on 18‑3‑1991 the question of time‑bar does not arise.
4. However, I am afraid there is no substance in the appeal on merit. The appellant had started his career in 1975 as a Helper while Abdul Razzaq had joined as a welder. While working as welder in Grade‑II Abdul Razzaq had put in 5‑1/2 years' service while on the showing of the appellant himself he had been there only for 3 years, and that had made all the difference.
5. Muhammad Ayub Ali Khan, an Assistant Manager of the respondents, who has appeared as a witness, had stated that "Abdul Razzaq had changed his trade specialty after serving 5‑1/2 years as helper, therefore, the comparison of both is unreasonable".
6. Be that as it may, the question of promotion and pay scale as presented was misconceived and cannot be the subject‑matter of a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. not being based on any right, settlement or award.
7. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2305/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.