1986 PLP 827 (PLC)
ABDUL QAYYUM Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1986 PLP 827 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL QAYYUM Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 827 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 827 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 827 (PLC) (ABDUL QAYYUM Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Azmatullah Khan for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Azmatullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986. This is an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court No.1, at Karachi, who decided the grievance petition on 30‑8‑1984. He dismissed the petition of the appellant.
2. Petitioner, Abdul Qayyum was a Security Guard in the respondent Corporation. On 16‑5‑1983 at 1‑00 a.m., the appellant was found sleeping in a hotel during duty hours. He was checked and subsequently, an enquiry was held and he was found guilty of dereliction of duties and found guilty of misconduct. He was, therefore, dismissed from service. The appellant filed a grievance petition.
3. The respondent‑Corporation filed a reply statement stating that the petition is not maintainable as the Security Guard does not come within the ambit of workman or worker as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. An affidavit of Abdul Qayyum was filed and he was cross‑examined and the affidavit of Amir Hussain Moghul, Depot Manager, North Karachi Depot was filed and he was also cross‑examined. The matter was argued by the respective representatives of the parties.
5. No evidence is brought on record to indicate that the appellant did any skilled or non‑skilled or manual job or he did the work of clerical nature. Since no evidence is led by the appellant in this respect, ordinarily, therefore, he would not come within the ambit of the definition of the worker. The grievance petition was held by the learned Labour Court to be not maintainable.
6. As regards the domestic enquiry held against the appellant, it is proper, and fully participated by the appellant. I feel that there is no case of the appellant in view of the evidence on record and he is IC Security Guard and does not come within the said definition. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal. A. E. Appeal dismissed.