1998 PLP 44 (PLC)
GHULAM YAHYA Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, JAMAL NOOR HOSPITAL, KARACHI
| Citation | 1998 PLP 44 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GHULAM YAHYA Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, JAMAL NOOR HOSPITAL, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 44 (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 1998 PLP 44 (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: 1998 PLP 44 (PLC) (GHULAM YAHYA Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, JAMAL NOOR HOSPITAL, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 36(2), 38(3) & 1(3)(f)
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12(3)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Workman-- Termination of services
Labour Court dismissed application for grant of stay of termination pending grievance application on the ground that since respondent establishment was charitable hospital, provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance did not apply to any person employed by such establishment maintained for the treatment and care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons
Labour Court also found that Chowkidar of hospital was outside the purview of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 as hospital was not an industrial or commercial establishment within meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance
Where even maintainability of main application was in issue and no prima facie case had been established, grayer for stay of re-instatement was rightly rejected, apart from the question of maintainability of stay application before Trial Court
Order of Trial Court was maintained in circumstances. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Applicant. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1997. This Revision Application under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O., 1969 has been filed by Ghulam Yahya, an ex-Chowkidar of Jamal Noor Hospital against an interlocutory order of Labour Court No. V, Karachi dismissing an application for grant of stay of termination pending the petition.
2. Briefly the facts of the main petition are that the Applicant was a Chowkidar in the establishment of Jamal Noor Hospital. His services were terminated. He accordingly filed a grievance petition for reinstatement before the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. It was alleged in the petition that the termination was illegal in violation of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
3. Pending the above petition an application was filed for stay of termination orders challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the application for stay pending the petition on the ground that there was no prima facie case since the respondent establishment was a charitable Hospital and "under Industrial Relations Ordinance (1)(3)(f) the I.R.O. shall not apply to any person employed by an establishment maintained for the treatment of care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons." The learned Lower Court also found that the Chowkidar of a Hospital was outside the purview of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 since a Hospital is not Industrial or Commercial Establishment within the meaning of the Standing Orders.
4. Thus when even the maintainability of the main petition is in issue and no prima facie case has been found out the prayer for stay of reinstatement under section 36(2) of the I.R.O. had been rightly rejected apart from the question of maintainability of stay application before the trial Court under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2.
5. The order of the Trial Court is accordingly maintained and this Revision Application is dismissed in limine. A.A./222/Lb.S Revision dismissed.