1996 PLP 126 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN
| Citation | 1996 PLP 126 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 126 (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 126 (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 126 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellant (not present).
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(a) & S.O. 12
Employee had challenged his retirement claiming that his date of birth as stated in record of employer company was different to his actual date of birth
Employee, who had accepted the retirement and all his dues; had not made any application during his service for alteration of his date of birth as registered with employer company
Additionally employer Company could not be proved that it employed twenty or more workers
In absence of any evidence in proof that date of birth of employee was different to one as registered with employer company, retirement of employee was not premature
Grievance petition of employee was dismissed being not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(a) & S.O. 12‑‑‑Retirement‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Employee had challenged his retirement claiming that his date of birth as stated in record of employer company was different to his actual date of birth‑‑‑Employee, who had accepted the retirement and all his dues; had not made any application during his service for alteration of his date of birth as registered with employer company‑‑‑Additionally employer Company could not be proved that it employed twenty or more workers‑‑‑In absence of any evidence in proof that date of birth of employee was different to one as registered with employer company, retirement of employee was not premature‑‑‑Grievance petition of employee was dismissed being not maintainable. Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellant (not present). Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th November, 1995. This appeal arises from order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Nawaz driver under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. for re‑instatement was dismissed.
2. It is the case of the appellant that he was working as a driver at the Corporation Office since June, 1960. In June, 1991 he was retired after he reached the age of 52 years. He gave grievance notice and then filed grievance petition for his premature retirement.
3. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant was appointed as a driver at the age of 24 years and not 21 years as claimed by him. That his date of birth was 1‑6‑1936. He was, therefore, retired with effect from 1‑6‑1991, after payments of all his legal dues. The learned lower Court found that the appellant had accepted the retirement and. accepted all his dues. On the date of final hearing, the appellant had remained absent and his representative had also remained absent for want of instructions. That during his service he had not made any application for alteration of his date of birth registered with the company. Under the circumstances there was no evidence to suggest that his retirement was premature. That in any case the respondent company was registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance and there was no proof that 20 or more workers were employed in the office of the Corporation in Karachi. The grievance petition was, therefore, dismissed as being not maintainable.
4. The learned Representative Mr. Abdul Majeed has not been able to present himself for arguments even in this Tribunal on account of the alleged illness and the appellant too has remained absent. I can see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court. The appeal has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./2540/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.