1987 PLP 212 (PLC)
GUL MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs AMEEJI VALEEJI & SONS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1987 PLP 212 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sand Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs AMEEJI VALEEJI & SONS, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1966) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 212 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1966) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 212 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sand Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 212 (PLC) (GUL MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs AMEEJI VALEEJI & SONS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. A. Channa for Appellant.
- Hassam Zafar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Termination of services--Employee admitting that he had neither appointment letter nor attendance card from establishment nor he was paid anything in shape of salary or wages from them- Employee, frankly admitting that his services were terminated by said contractor--Held, appellant obviously being employee of contractor and not of establishment had no case under S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance--Appeal was dismissed being devoid of merit.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. Channa for Appellant. Hassam Zafar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1986. Gul Muhammad an employee of Ameeji Valeeji & Sons, filed an application under section 25-A, I.R.O. 19169, and alleged that he has served the respondents for 22, years. On9-2-1983, his services were terminated unceremoniously without any written order and without assigning any reason. 2. The respondents raised preliminary legal issues that they employed less than 50 workers and as such provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance were not applicable to their establishment. It was further 2ontended that there was no pritvity of contract between the appellant and the respondents because the appellant was never employed by them. 3. I have heard the arguments of the parties. I refer to the admissions made by the appellant. He admitted in his cross-examination that "I do not have any appointment letter or attendance card. Messrs Amjee Valeejee never pad me anything in the shape of salary or wages." This is a very significant admission which proved that the appellant had nothing in his possession, nor a letter of appointment to prove that he was an employee of the respondents Company. He made further admission to the effect that he was recruited by one Rasheed Jamadar and Nooral the contractor. Obviously he was an employee of the contractor who recruited him through Rasheed Jamadar, whenever need arose for loading and unloading cargo of the ships on the Star Board side by barges. It was for the appellant to examine Nooral or Rasheed to prove that they had employed him on behalf of the respondents Company. The appellant also admitted that Nooral as wall as Rasheed were available in Karachi and could be produced in evidence. He frankly refused to examine them. He said that his services were terminated by Rasheed. If so, it is obvious that he was an employee of Rasheed, not of the respondent Company. 4. It, is, therefore, believed that he was employed by Rasheed as a contractor and not by the respondents Company. He has no case under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. M. Y. H./828/Lb Appeal dismissed.