1977 PLP 213 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus KOH-I-NOOK SPINNING MILLS LTD.
| Citation | 1977 PLP 213 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus KOH-I-NOOK SPINNING MILLS LTD. |
| Primary Law | (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (b) Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 213 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (b) Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 213 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 213 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD MUNIR Versus KOH-I-NOOK SPINNING MILLS LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saduilah Mumtaz for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 2(viii) and 2(xxviv)-Head Jobber-Performing supervisory job Not an employer but a worker. -- Retrenchment-Abolition of post-- Right of employer-Workman having been promoted as member of administrative staff-Cannot claim absorption as workman on abolition of administrative job held by him.
Judgment & Decree
S. 2(viii) and 2(xxviv)-Head Jobber-Performing supervisory job Not an employer but a worker. (b) Industrial dispute- -- Retrenchment-Abolition of post-- Right of employer-Workman having been promoted as member of administrative staff-Cannot claim absorption as workman on abolition of administrative job held by him. Saduilah Mumtaz for Petitioner. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui for Respondent. Petitioner has alleged in his petition that, he was Head Jobber. Hit services were terminated without any enquiry into any misconduct. He was a permanent employee. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. Written reply has been filed on its behalf. Evidence of the parties was recorded and arguments were heard. Learned counsel for the respondent in his written statement as well as in arguments has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner does not fall under the definition of a workman. He was a Head Jobber. It is in evidence of the petitioner that there were only 2 Head Jobbers and in his section he was the only man. 108 workers were under him. He used to allot machines to the workers. Nothing has been asked from him regarding the fact as to what was his wages by any of the parties. So his job was a Supervisory Job and Supervisor does not fall under the definition of employee. He was Objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is over. On merits learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner was retrenched from service. He joined the service of the respondent as Jobber. If the post of a Head Jobber fell surplus then he should have been offered a jot` of Jobber and some junior most Jobber should have been retrenched. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that after his promotion he became the member of Administrative Staff which was a different category. So job of an ordinary worker could not be offered to him. Petitioner was the only Head Jobber in his section. He could not be offered the job of an ordinary worker. To abolish a post is right of the employer. Petition merits dismissal. It is, therefore, dismissed.