1994 PLP 616 (PLC)
SHEEREEN KHAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER I, FIRST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 616 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SHEEREEN KHAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER I, FIRST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 616 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 616 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh 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 616 (PLC) (SHEEREEN KHAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER I, FIRST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellant.
- Muhammad Hamayun for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
of service‑‑‑Employee was appointed as Security Guard, but later on his services were terminated and his duties were entrusted to a contractor who was fully equipped with all security techniques, systems and implements where employee was junior most security guard‑‑‑Rights of employer to organise running of his affairs was his internal matter and looking to security problem that city was facing, no fault could be found with decision of employer who wanted to improve security arrangements in view of prevailing circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hamayun for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th April, 1994. The appellant was appointed by the respondents as a Security Guard on 3‑3‑1987 and his services came to be terminated on 29‑1‑1992. The security duties had been entrusted to a contractor.
2. The appellant admits that before the termination of his service, M/s. Shahzada Security Service had taken over duties from 1‑1‑1992. Later Intezam International had replaced them from 15‑3‑1992 who were equipped "with all the latest security techniques, systems and implements".
3. Admittedly the appellant was the junior most of the security guards. The fact however is that all of them had been disbanded because of the change that had come. The rights of an employer to organise the running of his affairs is an internal matter. Looking to the security problem that Karachi is facing, one cannot otherwise find fault with the decision of the respondent to opt for improved security arrangements.
4. The appellant had stated that in‑between he had also worked as Time keeper in place of Muhammad Sadiq and this part of the statement was not subjected to cross‑examination. Unfortunately for him this question was put to Owais. Amir Ali in cross‑examination and he denied the same. So, even that ground for whatever it is worth does not remain available any more. Otherwise too Muhammad Sadiq had not been examined and we are left only with the words of the appellant.
5. There is no merit in this appeal. I will, therefore, affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2314/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.