1984 PLP 1074 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., LAHORE
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1074 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan, Lodhi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1074 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1074 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan, Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1074 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asmat Kamal for Appellant.
- Date of hearing:1st October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑S. 2 (i)‑"Workman"‑Security guard‑No proof of any duty other than Watch and Ward‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition seeking re‑instatement of such security guard on grounds that he was not a workman upheld by Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑S. 2 (i)‑"Workman"‑Security guard‑No proof of any duty other than Watch and Ward‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition seeking re‑instatement of such security guard on grounds that he was not a workman upheld by Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3). Asmat Kamal for Appellant. Date of hearing:1st October, 1983. This appeal is directed against the decision dated 26th June, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment in service was dismissed on the ground that he was not a workman.
2. The appellant was a security guard. The allegation was that while on duty he was sleeping in his chair. Objection was raised in the written statement that the appellant was not a workman but the latter did not lead any evidence about his duties. Security guards act as watch and ward and have not to do any manual work. Their duty is to remain present and alert but besides this they have not to do any other work. During argument the appellant has said that during duty time he used to act as a gateman and had to open and shut the gate and check the vehicles coming in and going out, but he did not utter even a single word about it in his statement, nor lead any other evidence. In these circumstances the A learned lower Court was justified in relying upon 1983 P L C 227, 1983 P L C 272, 1982 P L C 226, 1982 P L C 228, 1983 P L C 342 and 1981 P L C 18 to hold that the appellant was not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. His petition was thus rightly dismissed on this ground.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not see any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.