1996 PLP 210 (PLC)
Messrs N. Y. & COMPANY OSMANABAD, KARACHI Versus ALI FARMAN
| Citation | 1996 PLP 210 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs N. Y. & COMPANY OSMANABAD, KARACHI Versus ALI FARMAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 210 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 210 (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 210 (PLC) (Messrs N. Y. & COMPANY OSMANABAD, KARACHI Versus ALI FARMAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sharif Ahmed for Appellant.
- M.A.K. Azmati for Respondent,
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1995,
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Employee whose services were terminated orally, was ordered to be re-instated by Labour Court
Employers challenged re-instatement of employee in appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal contending that godown where employee was working was a separate concern and that employee was not their worker, but was worker of contractor who controlled his work and made payments to him
Employers further alleged that they had employed less than ten persons at godown and less than five persons at their shop/office and that Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1965 and not West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was applicable to them because they employed less than twenty persons
Basic questions for determination were whether Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1965 applied to office and godown of employers or West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and whether shop and godown were one concern belonging to same party or were two different concerns, but Labour Court neither framed any issue in that respect nor gave any finding on those questions
Order of Labour Court was set aside and case was remanded to be decided afresh after recording evidence on issues raised by employers.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Sharif Ahmed for Appellant. M.A.K. Azmati for Respondent, Date of hearing: 27th September, 1995, This appeal arises from the order of First Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance application of respondent Ali Farman was allowed and he was ordered to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits. The facts in brief are that M/s. N.Y. & Company, the appellant, had their godown at Osmanabad, Sarya Gall, Karachi. Their shop/office was situated at Napier Road, Karachi. The respondent was a workman at the godown since 1976. On 10‑3‑1993 he accidentally injured his right hand, therefore, on 19‑3‑1993 his services were orally terminated. He sent his grievance notice and filed grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. He was then ordered to be re‑instated with full back benefits.
2. It is the case of the appellants that the shop or office. of Napier Road was a separate concern from the godown at Osmanabad. They have denied that the respondent was their worker. Their contention is that the respondent was worker of the contractor. He was controlling his work and making payments. They further alleged that they had employed less than ten persons at the godown and less than five persons at the shop/office. That the Shops Act was applicable to them and not the Standing Orders Ordinance because they employed less than 20 persons. On these points narrated above, the learned Labour Court did not frame any issues and there is no finding on them. It is a crucial point whether the Shops Act applies to their office and godown or the Standing Orders Ordinance, and whether the shop and godown are one concern belonging to the same party or two different concerns.
3. The judgment of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the same Court for a fresh decision after recording evidence on these issues and giving correct findings on them. The matter should be disposed of as soon as possible.
4. Case is remanded. H.B.T./2518/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.