1995 PLP 353 (PLC)
JAHANGIR KHAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 353 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | JAHANGIR KHAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 353 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 353 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 353 (PLC) (JAHANGIR KHAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Munim Khan for Appellant.
- Azmatullah Khan, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 2.4‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee who was working as Superintendent Grade‑16 was retired after age of sixty years and was paid certain amount as gratuity‑‑‑Employee in his grievance petition had claimed that he had been paid amount less than what was due and also claimed certain other dues‑‑‑Employee at time of his retirement was not a worker, but was an officer performing supervisory duties‑‑‑Evidence showed that employee could not take part in election of office‑bearers of union and as he was not a worker, could not cast his vote‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by employee, in circumstances, was not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
Azmatullah Khan, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1995. This appeal arises from the order of Sindh Labour Court No.1, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant fled under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. The appellant was working as Superintendent Grade‑16 in the respondent Karachi Transport Corporation. The appellant was retired after the age of sixty years and he was paid Rs.1,09,637.09 as gratuity. The appellant, however, claimed Rs.1,15,112 and his grievance was that he had been paid Rs.5,475 less than the amount due to him. He also claimed certain other dues in lieu of leave pay etc.
3. It was the case of the respondents K.T.C. that the appellant could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 was not maintainable as he was not a worker but he was an Officer at the time of his retirement performing supervisory duties. It had come in evidence that the appellant could not take part in the Election of the office‑bearers of the union as he was not a worker and could not cast his vote as such.
4. The learned Labour Court. therefore, rightly held that the petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 was not maintainable.
5. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that he had started as a clerk and he continued to do the same work even as Superintendent Grade‑16 but there is no denial of the fact that he had lost his right of vote in the Union Elections being an officer of the K.T.C.
6. I can, therefore, find no substance in this appeal which is, accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./2413/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.