1992PLC351 (PLP)
ABDUL GHAFFAR and 7 others Versus Messrs ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES (GARMENTS) (Pvt.) LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1992PLC351 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR and 7 others Versus Messrs ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES (GARMENTS) (Pvt.) LIMITED, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992PLC351 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992PLC351 (PLP)?
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: 1992PLC351 (PLP) (ABDUL GHAFFAR and 7 others Versus Messrs ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES (GARMENTS) (Pvt.) LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nizam Bukhari for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1091.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
Employees claiming to be workmen had filed joint grievance: petition against termination of their services
Only one of the employees was examined before Court and no other employee d filed any affidavit in evidence
Only employee examined in case, subsequently had withdrawn from proceedings and grievance petition filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn by Court and evidence given by him was kept out of consideration by Court while deciding case and no other evidence was left on record as no other employee had examined himself or produced any evidence
Employer had denied assertion of employees that they were their workmen
No appointment order of employees having been produced before Court, grievance petition was rightly dismissed by Court as employees had failed to prove their employment with employer.
Judgment & Decree
Nizam Bukhari for Appellants. Date of hearing: 4th September, 1091. This is an appeal against the order passed, by the learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No. 1 on 4-7-1991 dismissing the grievance petition of the appellants.
2. I have heard Mr. Nizam Bukhari for the appellants. The brief facts a that the appellants claim to be workmen working in the respondent establishment, who allegedly orally terminated the service of the appellants on 15-5-1.989. After serving grievance notices upon the respondent, the appellants filed joint grievance petition before Labour Court. In the joint grievance petition before the Labour Court the impugned order of the learned Labour Court discloses, that only appellant Abdul Ghaffar was examined before him and no other appellant filed affidavit-in-evidence. During the pendency of proceedings Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui learned Representative for the appellants filed an application on behalf of Abdul Ghaffar withdrawing his grievance petition praying for dismissal of the grievance application as he had no grievance whatsoever against the respondent.
3. In view of the fact, that Abdul Ghaffar had withdrawn from the proceedings, the grievance petition filed by, him was dismissed as withdrawn because of aforesaid application, the learned Labour Court kept the evidence of Abdul Ghaffar out of consideration while deciding the case. Without evidence of Abdul Ghaffar no other evidence was left on record as no other appellant had examined himself or produced any evidence. The respondents have denied the assertion that the appellants were their workmen. No appointment order of the appellants was produced before the learned Labour Court. Under the circumstances the learned Labour Court had rightly dismissed the-application as the appellants failed to prove their employment with the respondent. In this appeal also power of Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui alongwith his associate Mr. Nizam Bukhari has been filed. Mr. Nizam Bukhari does not dispute the filing of the aforesaid application on behalf of Abdul Ghaffar. Under these circumstances I find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1970/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.