1995 PLP 41 (PLC)
DOST MUHAMMAD Versus TRANSPAK CORPORATION LTD., HYDERABAD
| Citation | 1995 PLP 41 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD Versus TRANSPAK CORPORATION LTD., HYDERABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 41 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 41 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 41 (PLC) (DOST MUHAMMAD Versus TRANSPAK CORPORATION LTD., HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
- Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th September, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Workman‑‑‑Resignation‑‑‑Genuineness of resignation contested by workman‑‑‑Signatures on the voucher (whereby workman received his dues) and the resignation letter tallying with the signatures on the application for employment and other documents appeared to be genuine‑‑‑Nothing was brought on record to contradict the genuineness of signatures on the letter of resignation‑‑‑Workman having no cause for grievance was not entitled to any relief.
Judgment & Decree
The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen in short are as follows:‑‑ The petitioner was working as a helper with the respondent company since 15‑1‑1989. It is alleged that when he reported for duty on the 14th of May, 1990 he was not allowed to work on the pretext that he had already resigned from his job and collected all his outstanding dues. He had therefore sent a grievance notice and as no satisfactory reply was given he had filed the petition.
2. He was his own witness and one Muhammad Ibrahim the Administrative Officer had appeared on behalf. of the appellant. Finding the material issue in the negative the Labour Court dismissed the petition. 3: I have heard Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan for the respondent.
4. The only point needing consideration in this appeal is whether the letter of resignation and the voucher are genuine or not?
5. Admittedly there was no motive to axe the appellant from service. All that is argued by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi is that the respondents were in the habit of removing their workers for reasons or no reason. That is not an argument to notice seriously.
6. There are a number of documents commencing from the grievance notice, the affidavit, the signature on the petition, the signature on the power of attorney filed by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi and the vouchers which bear the signature of the appellant.
7. The signatures on the voucher and the resignation letter clearly tally with the signatures on the application for employment and other documents appear to be genuine. That clinches the matter.
8. In the result the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. A.A./2355/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.