1995 PLP 625 (PLC(CS))
LIMITED, KARACHI through General Manager Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED and 35 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP 625 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | LIMITED, KARACHI through General Manager Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED and 35 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 625 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 625 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1995 PLP 625 (PLC(CS)) (LIMITED, KARACHI through General Manager Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED and 35 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asim Nasir for Appellant. .
- Heard Mr. Asim Nasir, Advocate for the appellant.
- 37 respondents are employees of the appellant in various capacities and they have been working continuously for 2 or 3 years without any break. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that although they have been working continuously, yet they are working under six month's contract each time and the contract is renewed on expiry. That therefore they cannot be called permanent workers though admittedly they have worked for more than 183 days in a year. The lower Court held that the respondent workers have been working for ‑more than nine months continuously and they have become permanent under the Standing Orders Ordinance. I entirely agree with this proposition of law and see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court. The appeals are, therefore dismissed in limine.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 1(1)‑‑‑"Permanent worker"‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Employees continuously worked in various capacities for 2 or 3 years without any break‑‑ Employer contended that employees though worked continuously but as they remained working . under six months' contract each time and contract was renewed on expiry, employees could not be called "permanent workers"‑‑ Labour Court found that employees who had been working for more than nine months continuously, had become permanent under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Finding of Labour Court was unexceptional and could not be interfered with. Date of.hearing: 6th April, 1995.
Judgment & Decree
Appeals Nos. KAR‑130 to 166 of 1995, decided on 6th April, 1995. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 1(1)‑‑‑"Permanent worker"‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Employees continuously worked in various capacities for 2 or 3 years without any break‑‑ Employer contended that employees though worked continuously but as they remained working . under six months' contract each time and contract was renewed on expiry, employees could not be called "permanent workers"‑‑ Labour Court found that employees who had been working for more than nine months continuously, had become permanent under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Finding of Labour Court was unexceptional and could not be interfered with. Asim Nasir for Appellant. . Date of.hearing: 6th April, 1995. Heard Mr. Asim Nasir, Advocate for the appellant. 37 respondents are employees of the appellant in various capacities and they have been working continuously for 2 or 3 years without any break. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that although they have been working continuously, yet they are working under six month's contract each time and the contract is renewed on expiry. That therefore they cannot be called permanent workers though admittedly they have worked for more than 183 days in a year. The lower Court held that the respondent workers have been working for ‑more than nine months continuously and they have become permanent under the Standing Orders Ordinance. I entirely agree with this proposition of law and see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court. The appeals are, therefore dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2473/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.