1995 PLP 17 (PLC)
RAHIM ZADA Versus A & B BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 17 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | RAHIM ZADA Versus A & B BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 17 (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 1995 PLP 17 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 17 (PLC) (RAHIM ZADA Versus A & B BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan for Appellant.
- Abdul Hafiz for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑‑Worker's earlier grievance application alleging that he was gate‑stopped was dismissed by Labour Court on establishment's assertion that worker having not been terminated he was welcome to report to the establishment whereupon workman had resumed his duty‑‑‑Worker was thereafter, proceeded against for unauthorized absence and being found guilty was dismissed from service‑‑‑Worker's appeal against earlier dismissal of his grievance application‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Workers of establishment were earlier laid off, and proceedings were already pending before Labour Court in that context‑‑‑Another grievance application at the instance of worker, challenging his second dismissal was also pending adjudication‑‑‑Entire spectrum of dispute between parties was bound to be explored in the second grievance application‑‑‑There being no warrant for multiplicity of proceedings and no prejudice, whatsoever, being discernible, worker's appeal against dismissal of his earlier grievance application was dismissed as being infructuous.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 9th August, 1994. The appellant was working as an un-loader with the respondent No. 1 for some years. It is alleged that on the 1st of February, 1992, he was gate- stopped. He had sent a grievance notice on the 2nd of February and filed a petition before the Labour Court, in spite of the fact that the alleged termination from service was denied in the reply of the grievance notice.
2. In the written reply it was repeated that the service of the appellant had not been terminated and he was welcome to report to the factory.
3. The learned Presiding Officer, in these circumstances dismissed the petition. It is stated that in the wake of this order the appellant had resumed the duty and also drawn his pay. After some interval he was proceeded against for unauthorised absence. Being found guilty in an ex parte proceeding he was dismissed from service. The appellant had challenged this order of dismissal before the Labour Court.
4. Mr. Abdul Hafiz, learned counsel for the respondent has made an application praying that in view of the subsequent dismissal of the appellant, the appeal has become infructuous, and should therefore be dismissed. A counter‑affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hafiz and Mr. Kh'alil‑ur‑Rehman.
6. It appears that the workers of the respondent factory were earlier laic! off, and proceedings are already pending before the Labour Court in that context. There is also the other petition at the instance of the appellant challenging his dismissal. The entire spectrum of the dispute between the parties is bound to be explored in the latter petition.
7. Agreeing with Mr. Abdul Hafiz that in the circumstances there is no warrant for multiplicity of proceedings and further holding that no prejudice, whatsoever, is even remotely discernible, I will allow the application.
8. As a result the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. AA./2349/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.