1979 PLP 535 (PLC)
JAMAL DIN Versus KARIM WEAVING FACTORY
| Citation | 1979 PLP 535 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAMAL DIN Versus KARIM WEAVING FACTORY |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 535 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 535 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 535 (PLC) (JAMAL DIN Versus KARIM WEAVING FACTORY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Vasi Ahmad. for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 57 (f), 59 & 66 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Termination of service‑Redress‑Avail able only under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provisions of S. 57 ( f ) of Social Security Ordinance, 1965 not relevant‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Contention that petition should have been entertained under Ss. 59 & 66 of Social Security Ordinance, 1975, held, misconceived.
Judgment & Decree
Vasi Ahmad. for Appellant. This is an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court hid. 1, Karachi, dismissing the application filed under section 66 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance and section 25‑A the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, The services of the appellant were terminated as per letter dated 18th January, 1977. He filed aforesaid application on 20th September, 1977. The application treated to be under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., 1969, and it was dismissed as time‑barred because it was filed 8 months after the termination .of the services. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that the application though time‑barred under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., 1969, was also under section 66 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance and there was no time prescribed under Ordinance for approaching the Labour Court.
3. On perusal of section 59, it is plain enough that the application in respect of the termination of the service under section 59 of the Social Security Ordinance was misconceived, as this section provided that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Institution under section 57 or Review under section 58 could file an appeal to the Social Security Court which was a Labour Court and it was rightly pointed out by the Labour Court that there was no decision of the Social Security Court either under section 57 or section 58 of that Ordinance. Even otherwise, section 57 was not applicable as the case in respect of termination of the service does not fall under any of the clauses of section
57. The learned counsel, however, tried to argue that the case fell under clause (f ) of section 57 but it seems that the learned counsel has not been able to appreciate the subject with which it deals. Clause ( f ) reads as under :‑
" .any other matter in respect of any contribution or other dues payable or recoverable under this Ordinance..." The bare reading of this clause shows that the relief which can be claimed under section 57, is not in respect of the termination of the service but with regard to any money that is recoverable as stated in 8 the clause. So, the present case is not for the recovery of the money' and, therefore, this clause (f ) is not applicable. In the result, the appeal is summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed.