1983 PLP 273 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD.
| Citation | 1983 PLP 273 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 273 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 273 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 273 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing :18th November, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968))‑ ‑‑S 2 (i)‑Watchman‑Guarding factory premises‑Not performing any manual work‑Not a workman‑Grievance petition against dismissal, held, rightly held as not maintainable‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A &
38. Munawwar Ahmad Javed for 'Petitioner
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against the decision dated 8‑5‑8.2 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 4, .Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a watchman. On the night of 2nd April, 1981 43 bundles of jute were stolen from the Sammundri Road godown where the appellant was on duty. 'He was therefore charge‑sheeted for neglect of work, inefficiency and careless performance of duties.
3. The point on which the case of the appellant fails is that he being a watchman is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In the written statement the respondent had taken the plea that the appellant was not a workman, but the appellant did not produce any evidence regarding his duties. From the evidence brought on the inquiry file it appears that the appellant used to guard the premises at night. Such an employee has not to do any manual work. Manual work is that which is done by hands. Obviously a watchman has not to do any work with hands. He may be patrolling but while discharging such a duty has not to do any manual work. There are certain such chowkidars who have to do some manual work br it the appellant was not that kind of chowkidar. The gatekeepers of factories have to close and open the gates when any goods are brought in and taken out of the factory. They check the goods and make entry in the relevant record. But a, watchman guarding the premises has not to do any manual or clerical work like the gateman of a factory. The learned lower Court therefore rightly held that the appellant was not a workman. As a result of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it is limine. Appeal dismissed.