PLC 1998

1998 PLP 37 (PLC)

Rana ASGHAR ALI Versus M/s. AL-ASIF SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeal No. KAR-55 of 1997, decided on 2nd April, 1997.
Honorable Judges
Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1998 PLP 37 (PLC)
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal
Parties Rana ASGHAR ALI Versus M/s. AL-ASIF SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI and another
Primary Law Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 37 (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 37 (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 37 (PLC) (Rana ASGHAR ALI Versus M/s. AL-ASIF SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Representation

  • S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant.
  • Khadim Hussain for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1997

Headnotes / Summary

S. 38(3)

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(vi)

Termination of services

Labour Court dismissed employee's grievance application against his dismissal

Validity

Employee was working as Officer on Special Duty at the Head Office of establishment which employed less than 20 workers and was separate entity

Employee had failed to discharge burden that he was workman in industrial unit of establishment and that such industry employed more than 20 workers

Admitted position was that employee was working as Officer on Special Duty and not as worker and that unit of Head Office employed less than 20 workers

Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance; 1968 did not apply to persons employed by Head Office

Order of Labour Court dismissing employee's grievance application was maintained in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant. Khadim Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1997 This appeal arises from order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for reinstatement and back benefits. 2. The appellant was working as Foreman Welder at Asifabad Sugar Mills, Gharo, District Thatta. After four months service he was dismissed for misconduct. His grievance petition against dismissal was also rejected. This happened in the year 1988 Al-Asif Sugar Mills management changed hands. It was first running under the name of Al-Asif Sugar Mills. Later on the management was taken over strictly by the Bawany Group with Head Office at Karachi. The appellant approached the Head Office and on compassionate grounds the appellant was re-employed in March 1992 on monthly wages of Rs.5,000 as Officer on Special Duty at Habib Square near Memon Masjid, Karachi. He was told that he had to find employment and lie was being re-employed only for a period of nine months not as a workman but for doing no work. This Head Office of Bawany Group of Industries employed 17 workers taken as a separate Unit. The employees could not claim the benefits of the I.R.O. and the Standing Orders. The appellant's job was then terminated and he filed his grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for reinstatement. His petition was dismissed by the Labour Court and he has accordingly preferred this appeal. 3. Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant has argued that the appellant was working as a Welder at the Gharo Factory and the management although required by law had not issued any written orders of his re-employment. 4. It has on the other hand been argued by Mr. Khadim Hussain for the respondent that the burden was on the petitioner to show that he was a workman under the I.R.O. and that he was working at Al-Asif Sugar Mills at Gharo. That the appellant has failed to establish this fact and in his Cross Examination he has admitted the payment vouchers under which he was paid his salary were of the Head Office at Karachi. That he had failed to prove that he was working as a Welder at Al-Asif Sugar Mills, Gharo because he was actually working as O.S.D. as the Head Office which employed less than 20 workers and was a separate entity. Mr. Khadim Hussain has further pointed out that on 30-7-1995 the Hyderabad Labour Court had permitted closure of the Mills known as AI-Asif Sugar Mills, Gharo. That he cannot therefore be reinstated at Al-Asif Sugar Mills which no longer exists. The appellant has thus failed to discharge the burden that he was a workman at AI-Asif Sugar Mills, Gharo and the Industry employed more than 20 workers. On the other hand it has been continued that the appellant was working as Officer on Special Duty and not as a worker and that Unit at the Head Office employed less than 20 workers. The I.R.O. and the Standing Orders therefore did not apply to the persons employed at the Head Office. 5.? The order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed. A.A./225/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.