2016 PLP 42 (PLC)
Mrs. FARHANA Versus Messrs SINDH SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION through Managing Director and 2 others
| Citation | 2016 PLP 42 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ali Sain Dino Metlo, Member |
| Parties | Mrs. FARHANA Versus Messrs SINDH SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION through Managing Director and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 42 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 42 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Ali Sain Dino Metlo, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 42 (PLC) (Mrs. FARHANA Versus Messrs SINDH SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION through Managing Director and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Nasim Abbasi for Appellant
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 34 & 48
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.12
Employee, a junior clerk, was terminated, and she on receiving one month pay in lieu of notice, she severed her relations with the employer corporation
Employee after about 10 years of her removal from service, filed grievance application before Labour Court, without filing application or showing any cause for condonation of the delay, in filing grievance application
Employee, had contended that an other employee, whose service was terminated on the same day by a separate, but similar order, having been directed by Labour Court to be reinstated, benefit of Labour Court judgment of that other employee should be given to her as well
Said other employee who was reinstated, was ten years senior in service to the employee and her rank was also higher
Order of the Labour Court was not "judgment in rem", as it had neither decided any question of law, nor its decision was binding
Facts of the two cases being quite different, the ratio of case of other employee, could not be applied to case of employee. Mohammad Mubin-us-Salam's case PLD 2006 SC 602; 2011 PLC 161; 2009 SCMR 1; 1996 SCMR 1185 and 2005 PLC (C.S.) 368 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER.
The appellant has challenged order dated 28th May, 2015, of the Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, dismissing her grievance application for reinstatement in service as time-barred.
2. Briefly, the facts are that service of the appellant, a junior clerk (BPS-05) in the respondent corporation, was terminated on 31st December, 2003, and on receiving one month pay in lieu of notice she severed her relations with the corporation.
3. On 1st June, 2013, she sent grievance notice to the respondent and on 8th July, 2013, i.e. after about ten years of her removal from service, she filed grievance application before the Labour Court without filing application, or showing any cause, for condonation of the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that one Mst. Salma, whose service was terminated on the same day by a separate but similar order, had challenged her termination, within time, first before the Service Tribunal and then, after abatement of appeal in the wake of judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Mubin-us-Salam's case (PLD 2006 SC 602), before the Labour Court, and that the Labour Court, by its judgment dated 15th April, 2009, had directed to reinstate her and corporation's appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal on 11th March, 2011.
5. Citing the precedents reported in 2011 PLC 161 (Peshawar), 2009 SCMR 1, 1996 SCMR 1185 and 2005 PLC (C.S.) 368, learned counsel for the appellant contends that benefit of Labour Court's judgement in Mst. Salma's case should be given to the appellant as well. The argument is misconceived.
6. The judgment of the Labour Court shows that Mst. Salma was reinstated, because the corporation, while retaining a junior, Mst. Safya, had terminated service of a senior, Mst. Salma. It is not case of the appellant that Mst. Salma or Mst. Safya were junior to her. As a matter of fact, Mst. Salma was ten years senior in service to the appellant and her rank was also higher. She was a teacher in BPS-11.
7. The order of the Labour Court is not a judgment in rem. Moreover, it has neither decided any question of law, nor its decisions are binding as are of the Supreme Court under Article 189 or a High Court under Article 201 of the Constitution. Besides, the facts of the two cases being quite different, the ratio of Mst. Salma's case cannot be applied to the appellant's case.
8. In view of the above, the appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. HBT/25/SLT Appeal dismissed.