1992 PLP 353 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF JAT Versus GENERAL MANAGER (COORDINATION/ADMN/PR), SHAH MURAD SUGAR MILLS and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP 353 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF JAT Versus GENERAL MANAGER (COORDINATION/ADMN/PR), SHAH MURAD SUGAR MILLS and another |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 353 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 353 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 353 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF JAT Versus GENERAL MANAGER (COORDINATION/ADMN/PR), SHAH MURAD SUGAR MILLS and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Races M. Mushtaq for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th August, 1991.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the relevant papers.
Headnotes / Summary
S.O. 16
Eviction of employee from residential accommodation-- Provisions of S.d.16 of Ordinance would come into operation only after it was decided by Labour Court that employee was a "workman"
Employers were disputing status of employee as a "workman" and that question was sub judice before Labour Court
In case Labour Court found employee not to be workman, he would be out of Court so far as his grievance petition was concerned, but in that case he could not be ejected under S.O. 16, but only through normal law relating to licensor and licensee
Order of eviction passed by Labour Court under S.0.16 was set aside as being premature in circumstances. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
S.O. 16
Eviction of employee from residential accommodation-- Provisions of S.d.16 of Ordinance would come into operation only after it was decided by Labour Court that employee was a "workman"
Employers were disputing status of employee as a "workman" and that question was sub judice before Labour Court
In case Labour Court found employee not to be workman, he would be out of Court so far as his grievance petition was concerned, but in that case he could not be ejected under S.O. 16, but only through normal law relating to licensor and licensee
Order of eviction passed by Labour Court under S.0.16 was set aside as being premature in circumstances. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Applicant. Races M. Mushtaq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th August, 1991. This is an application invoking suo motu jurisdiction of this Tribunal praying that legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 28-5-1991, passed by learned Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad in Application No. 73 of 1991, be examined.
2. I have heard Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the relevant papers.
3. Admittedly the applicant was Cane Procurement Officer employed by the respondent whose services were terminated on 6-1-1991. He was ordered to vacate the premises under Standing Order 16(1). Admittedly the applicant has filed grievance petition against the order of termination which is resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that he is not a workman. The learned Labour Court in that grievance application has passed this impugned order. The provision of Standing Order 16 would come into operation only after it is decided by the Labour Court that the applicant is a workman. As pointed above the respondents are disputing his status as a workman and this question is sub judice before learned Labour Court. If the learned Labour Court holds the applicant not to be workman, then he would be out of Court so far as grievance petition is concerned but at the same time he cannot be ejected under Standing Order 16 but normal law with regard to licensor and licensee would prevail. The impugned order of the learned Labour Court, based on Standing Order 16 is premature without deciding the main question as to the status of the applicant, and is therefore set aside. H.B.T./1960/Lb.S Application accepted.