1994 PLP 618 (PLC)
Shaikh ABDUL HAQUE Versus M/s. PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO. LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 618 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Shaikh ABDUL HAQUE Versus M/s. PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO. LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 618 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 618 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 618 (PLC) (Shaikh ABDUL HAQUE Versus M/s. PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO. LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Representative for Appellant.
- Mehboob Rizvi, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Employee was initially appointed by Shipping Company as Junior Electric Engineer, but later on was promoted as Electric Engineer‑‑‑Employee while abroad had heart attack and was repatriated to Pakistan where he underwent a bye‑pass operation‑‑‑Employee was declared by doctor unfit for sea service, but certificate given by that doctor added that he could do light duties at shore‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated on basis of said certificate of the doctor‑‑‑Employee otherwise not being a worker, his grievance petition and appeal were not maintainable‑‑ Employee had contended that according to certificate of doctor he could be given light duties on shore, if he was not fit to work on ship‑‑‑Case of employers was that they had no light duty to offer to employee‑‑‑Even otherwise, employer could not be compelled under law to find alternative job elsewhere for employee‑‑‑In absence of any colourable exercise of authority or victimisation on the part of employer in terminating services of employee, termination order could not be termed as illegal. Road Transport Corporation, Lahore v. Sher Muhammad 1971 PLC 212 and Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hayat Khan 1983 PLC 401 ref.
Judgment & Decree
"We refer to your applications dated 6‑10‑1990 and 17‑11‑1990, we have already advised you that we have no shore job in our office. We, therefore, do not understand what further advice you require from us. You have been declared unfit for sea service as such stand relieved from our service. You are advised to apply to. Trustees Staff Provident Fund for settlement of your dues." He had thereafter served a grievance notice on 20‑12‑1990 which was replied to which inter alia has following to say: "As per your entitlement you were allowed leave with pay/without pay for the period of your illness and thereafter. Since you were declared unfit for sea service for which you were being specifically appointed, we having no light duty as a Shipping Company at shore in our Head Office or elsewhere, your services were accordingly terminated effective 27‑1‑1990."
3. The petition followed before the Labour Court.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and MA. Waheed, Commercial Officer of the respondent‑Company appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. According to SA. Waheed, the Electrical Engineer is the Incharge of a Electrical Department of the ship. Under him there is one Junior Electrical Engineer, three Electricians, Winch Men and five Fire Men. The job of the Electrical Engineer is to direct, supervise and control the work of the Electrical Department. According to him repair work used to be done by the staff under his control and he had only to supervise it. These facts were not controverted. All that was suggested in the examination was that the Winch Man and the Fire Man were not under his control.
6. There can be no dispute with the contention of Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Khan that the designation or the pay of Rs.7,000 per month by itself will not determine the status of the appellant as an Officer exercising supervisory authority. However, it is clearly made out that there were others to attend to the day to day affairs of the ship during the voyages. I agree with the finding of the Labour Court that he was not a workman. That is enough to dispose of the appeal but a word may be said on merits also.
7. The appellant has worked with the respondents for a long period and had been lately promoted. Admittedly the heart attack which he had suffered at Jeddah had rendered him unfit for any onerus duty. According to the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Shareef a renowned Specialist he could attend to only light duties on shore. The respondents' case is that they have no light duty to offer. The statement of MA. Waheed has not been challenged on that score. Anyway an employer cannot be compelled under the law to find an alternative job elsewhere. Further, it cannot even remotely be imagined that there was any colourable exercise of authority or victimisation in the circumstances of the case.
8. It is true that there is no offer of a month's salary and the due outstanding but evidence showed, and it is not denied that some loan had been taken by the appellant. Any way that by itself would not make the order of termination invalid. (See Road Transport Corporation, Lahore v. Sher Muhammad 1971 PLC 212 and Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hayat Khan 1983 PLC 401).
9. In the result I will uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2313/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.