1997 PLP 633 (PLC)
THE OPERATIONAL HEAD BULK WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI and another Versus MUHAMMAD QASIM and another
| Citation | 1997 PLP 633 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE OPERATIONAL HEAD BULK WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI and another Versus MUHAMMAD QASIM and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 633 (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 1997 PLP 633 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 633 (PLC) (THE OPERATIONAL HEAD BULK WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI and another Versus MUHAMMAD QASIM and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dilawar Hussain for Appellants.
- M. Latif Saghar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1996.
- Thereafter, his services were orally terminated without any order in writing on the plea that he was working on daily wages but even a temporary worker oil daily wages is a worker within the definition of I.R.O. and the Standing Orders and under Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance services of a workman shall not be terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. The learned Advocate for the Steel Mills admits that the respondent's services were terminated without any order in writing and without giving him any reason.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os. 1(3) & 12(3)‑‑‑Termination of temporary worker‑‑‑Employee who was appointed temporarily on daily wages on work of permanent nature, his services were terminated orally without any order in writing on plea that he worked on daily wages‑‑‑Temporary worker on daily wages was also a 'worker' within definition of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and his services could not be terminated except by an order in writing, explicitly stating reason for such termination.
Judgment & Decree
Dilawar Hussain for Appellants. M. Latif Saghar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th August, 1996. This appeal arises from an order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of respondent worker Muhammad Qasim for reinstatement in service with full back benefits.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was appointed as silt cleaner at Gharo in the Water Supply Department of the appellant Bulk Water Supply Pakistan Steel Mills. He was appointed temporarily and was to be paid consolidated wages at the rate of Rs.35 per day. However, no particular fixed term was mentioned for which he was appointed and he continued to remain in service up to 16‑10‑1991. The work being of permanent nature. Thereafter, his services were orally terminated without any order in writing on the plea that he was working on daily wages but even a temporary worker oil daily wages is a worker within the definition of I.R.O. and the Standing Orders and under Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance services of a workman shall not be terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. The learned Advocate for the Steel Mills admits that the respondent's services were terminated without any order in writing and without giving him any reason.
3. Under the circumstances the termination is bad and not in compliance with the Standing Orders requirements. The learned Labour Court accordingly held that the order being in violation of Standing Order 12(3) the termination had to be set aside.
4. I can see no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Labour Court. There is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./162/Lb.S Appeal dismissed