1998 PLP 22 (PLC)
ISRARUL HAQ Versus Messrs MIDWAY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1998 PLP 22 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ISRARUL HAQ Versus Messrs MIDWAY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 22 (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 1998 PLP 22 (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: 1998 PLP 22 (PLC) (ISRARUL HAQ Versus Messrs MIDWAY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rizwan Ahmed for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Employee in his grievance petition had claimed that he should be paid his wages in cash and not by cheque and that his court attendance should be regarded as duty and no leave for that purpose should be required
Grievance of employee that wages were paid by cheque and not by cash, was not a grievance which could be redressed under S. 25-A of industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 especially when due to insecurity only proper course for payment was through cheque and also when no law existed under which wages should be paid in cash-- Court attendance was optional and not compulsory and employee had to obtain leave for the day
Such was also not grievance falling under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations .Ordinance, 1969
Questions raised by employee in his grievance petition being not grievance contemplated under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, rather being academic question, grievance petition of employee was rightly rejected by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. 25-A
Employee in his grievance petition had claimed that he should be paid his wages in cash and not by cheque and that his court attendance should be regarded as duty and no leave for that purpose should be required
Grievance of employee that wages were paid by cheque and not by cash, was not a grievance which could be redressed under S. 25-A of industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 especially when due to insecurity only proper course for payment was through cheque and also when no law existed under which wages should be paid in cash-- Court attendance was optional and not compulsory and employee had to obtain leave for the day
Such was also not grievance falling under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations .Ordinance, 1969
Questions raised by employee in his grievance petition being not grievance contemplated under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, rather being academic question, grievance petition of employee was rightly rejected by Labour Court. Rizwan Ahmed for Appellant. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1997. This appeal is directed against the order of Sindh Labour Court No.IV, Karachi dismissing an application by the worker that the wages be paid in cash and not by cheque and the Court attendance of a worker should be regarded as duty and no leave for the purpose would be required.
2. The questions raised by the worker are not included in the grievance contemplated under section 25-A of the I.R.O. These are rather academic questions and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications of the workers. That the wages are paid by cheque and not by cash is not a grievance which can be redressed under section 25 of the I.R.O. During these days of insecurity, the only proper course for payment is by cheque and the workers should train themselves to accept transactions through the Banks. There is no law under which they should be paid by cash. As for the Court attendance which causes absence from work, the worker has to obtain the leave for the day. The Court attendance being optional and not compulsory. This is also not a grievance which falls under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The case does not fall under any Law, award or settlement. The grievance petition was thus, rightly rejected by the Labour Court and I can find no ground for interference. 3 There is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./205/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.