1996 PLP 173 (PLC)
AJMAIR SHARIF and 19 others Versus Messrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY
| Citation | 1996 PLP 173 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AJMAIR SHARIF and 19 others Versus Messrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 173 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 173 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 173 (PLC) (AJMAIR SHARIF and 19 others Versus Messrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 26th-November, 1995.
- The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that under a new contract the appellants ceased to be workers of the sub‑contractor M/s. Steffcon & Company and they became direct workers of the respondent Siemens Pakistan Company. The new letters of appointment have not however been produced showing this change of employment. On the contrary they have produced a letter which shows that they have been allowed to work against old contract entered into by Siemens with Steffcon who shall continue to make payments to them. The matter whether the appellants are workers of Siemens with Steffcon is pending before the Supreme Court. They should await the decision of the Supreme Court as ordered by the Labour Court. They have neither appointment order nor termination order given to them by Siemens Company.
Headnotes / Summary
Change of employment
Employees had contended that under a new contract they had ceased to be workers of sub-contractor and had become direct workers of respondent-Company
Employee neither had produced new letters of appointment nor termination order given to them by respondent company to show such change of employment
Matter whether employees were workers of sub-contractor or of respondent-Company was pending before Supreme Court
Employees, held, should wait for the decision of Supreme Court as ordered by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. KAR‑466 of 1995, decided on 26th November, 1995. ‑‑‑‑ Change of employment‑‑‑Employees had contended that under a new contract they had ceased to be workers of sub‑contractor and had become direct workers of respondent‑Company‑‑‑Employee neither had produced new letters of appointment nor termination order given to them by respondent company to show such change of employment‑‑‑Matter whether employees were workers of sub‑contractor or of respondent‑Company was pending before Supreme Court‑‑‑Employees, held, should wait for the decision of Supreme Court as ordered by Labour Court. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellants. Date of hearing: 26th‑November, 1995. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that under a new contract the appellants ceased to be workers of the sub‑contractor M/s. Steffcon & Company and they became direct workers of the respondent Siemens Pakistan Company. The new letters of appointment have not however been produced showing this change of employment. On the contrary they have produced a letter which shows that they have been allowed to work against old contract entered into by Siemens with Steffcon who shall continue to make payments to them. The matter whether the appellants are workers of Siemens with Steffcon is pending before the Supreme Court. They should await the decision of the Supreme Court as ordered by the Labour Court. They have neither appointment order nor termination order given to them by Siemens Company.
2. Thus, the order of the Labour Court is maintained and this appeal is dismissed in limine. . H.B.T./2549/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.