1983 PLP 365 (PLC)
KARAMAT ALI MALIK Versus BATA SHOE COMPANY
| Citation | 1983 PLP 365 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KARAMAT ALI MALIK Versus BATA SHOE COMPANY |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 365 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 365 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 365 (PLC) (KARAMAT ALI MALIK Versus BATA SHOE COMPANY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram for Appellant.
- M. S. Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 14th December, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑‑ S. 2(i) & S. O. 12(3)‑" Workman"‑‑Foreman of a Shoe Com pany‑‑Mainly not to do any manual work‑Not a workman‑‑Griev ance petition against dismissal from service, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court ‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38. 1971 P L C 1 rel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑‑ S. 2(i) & S. O. 12(3)‑" Workman"‑‑Foreman of a Shoe Com pany‑‑Mainly not to do any manual work‑Not a workman‑‑Griev ance petition against dismissal from service, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court ‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38. 1971 P L C 1 rel. Muhammad Akram for Appellant. M. S. Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing : 14th December, 1982. This appeal emanates from the decision dated 14th December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, where by the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed on the ground that he was not covered by the definition of work man. The appellant was a Foreman. The allegation against him for which he was dismissed from service was that he had refused to work in the night shift. The plea of the appellant was that since he had worked in the day shift, he would not work in the night shift. Duty roster P‑9 was produced relying upon which the learned lower Court held that the appellant was not covered by the definition of workman. The Duty Roster has been reproduced by the learned lower Court in his judgment and the same may not be repeated here. The duties given in P‑9 clearly show that the main duty of the appellant were not to do any manual work. In 1971 P L C a Foreman of Bata Shoe Company has been held to be not a `workman'. In view of the duties given in P‑9 and the authority mention ed above, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to advance any effective arguments to show that the appellant is covered by the defini tion of `workman'. As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it. Appeal dismissed.