1997 PLP 363 (PLC)
ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD. Through General Manager, Tando Muhammad Khan, Hyderabad Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN
| Citation | 1997 PLP 363 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD. Through General Manager, Tando Muhammad Khan, Hyderabad Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 363 (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 1997 PLP 363 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 363 (PLC) (ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD. Through General Manager, Tando Muhammad Khan, Hyderabad Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood H. Siddiqui, Representative for Appellant.
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1996.
- Respondent Muhammad Yasin was employed as Welder by Zeal Pak Cement Factory in the year 1981. In the year 1992 he was asked to do the work as Assistant Foreman with a promise that after six months if it was found that he could work satisfactorily he would be recommended for promotion as Assistant Foreman. After six months the respondent pressed for the promised promotion but his prayer was turned down. He then filed his grievance petition before the Sixth Labour Court at Hyderabad. However the Labour Court allowed his claim and appointed him Assistant Foreman from 10‑11‑1992 till 6‑8‑1995. It has been argued by Advocate for the appellant that under section 25‑A _of the I.R.O. the worker can bring his grievance before the Labour Court if 3t is in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law award or settlement. That there is no law award or settlement or promotion of a Welder to the post of Assistant Foreman as of right.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑5. 25‑A‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Employee who was employed as "welder" later on was asked to work as "Assistant Foreman" with a promise that if after six months it was found that he could work satisfactorily on that post he would be promoted and confirmed as Assistant Foreman‑‑Employee not only completed probation period of six months successfully but continued to work thereafter‑‑‑Period of probation having expired and there being no complaint against employee, he was entitled to confirmation as Assistant Forbman according to promise made by employer.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑5. 25‑A‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Employee who was employed as "welder" later on was asked to work as "Assistant Foreman" with a promise that if after six months it was found that he could work satisfactorily on that post he would be promoted and confirmed as Assistant Foreman‑‑Employee not only completed probation period of six months successfully but continued to work thereafter‑‑‑Period of probation having expired and there being no complaint against employee, he was entitled to confirmation as Assistant Forbman according to promise made by employer. Mehmood H. Siddiqui, Representative for Appellant. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1996. Respondent Muhammad Yasin was employed as Welder by Zeal Pak Cement Factory in the year 1981. In the year 1992 he was asked to do the work as Assistant Foreman with a promise that after six months if it was found that he could work satisfactorily he would be recommended for promotion as Assistant Foreman. After six months the respondent pressed for the promised promotion but his prayer was turned down. He then filed his grievance petition before the Sixth Labour Court at Hyderabad. However the Labour Court allowed his claim and appointed him Assistant Foreman from 10‑11‑1992 till 6‑8‑1995. It has been argued by Advocate for the appellant that under section 25‑A _of the I.R.O. the worker can bring his grievance before the Labour Court if 3t is in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law award or settlement. That there is no law award or settlement or promotion of a Welder to the post of Assistant Foreman as of right.
2. Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the respondent workman has however produced an order in writing dated 10th November, 1992 deputing the respondent to work as Assistant Foreman on probation for six months. Thereafter he had continued to work as Assistant Foreman. The Representative for the Zeal Pak Cement Factory admits that the respondent continued to do this job as Assistant Foreman up to February, 1994. Thus the respondent appears to have completed his period of probation and he continued working even thereafter. He, therefore, asked for promotion order as a permanent Assistant Foreman but he was not confirmed. He accordingly filed grievance petition for confirmation and wages. The period of Probation having expired and there being no complaint against the respondent he was entitled to confirmation as Assistant Foreman. H.B.T/128/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.