1993 PLP 566 (PLC(CS))
PERVEZ Versus THE 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 566 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PERVEZ Versus THE 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 566 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 566 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1993 PLP 566 (PLC(CS)) (PERVEZ Versus THE 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Rafiq Malik for Appellant.
- S.S. Jahangir Khan for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Court on basis of evidence on record found that number of employees working with employer was below twenty and nothing was on record to show that employee ever was in employment of employer‑‑ Memorandum filed by employer had certified that "factory" had been closed‑‑ Employee, could not be reinstated, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
M. Rafiq Malik for Appellant. S.S. Jahangir Khan for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1992. The appellant's case before the Labour Court was that his services had been terminated by the respondent's establishment verbally on 16‑7‑1989. The petition was resisted on the ground that the provisions of the Labour Laws were not applicable and that the factory itself has ceased to operate a few months before the alleged date of removal.
2. The Labour Court found that the number of employees was below twenty and otherwise too there was nothing beyond the word of the petitioner to show that he was ever in the employment of the respondents.
3. Apart from the other documents filed by the respondents there is also a Memorandum', dated 4th October, 1989, certifying that the `factory' had been closed w.e.f. 29‑9‑1989. There is not a shred of the paper to show that the appellant had ever worked with the respondents.
4. In this view of the matter there is no substance in the appeal. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2172/Lb:S Appeal dismissed.