2007 PLP 102 (PLC)
Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER/FACTORY MANAGER, AHMAD GHEE INDUSTRIES, RAHIMYAR KHAN and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP 102 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER/FACTORY MANAGER, AHMAD GHEE INDUSTRIES, RAHIMYAR KHAN and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 102 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 102 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 102 (PLC) (Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER/FACTORY MANAGER, AHMAD GHEE INDUSTRIES, RAHIMYAR KHAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmad Bhutta for Appellant.
- Muhammad Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 46 & 48
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i) & S.O.15
Services of appellant having been terminated on ground of misconduct; he filed grievance petition challenging his termination from service
Grievance petition of appellant was dismissed on the sole ground that appellant was not 'workman' within the meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Parties on the question of nature of job were not in agreement-Appellant had asserted that work done by him was not of managerial or supervisory nature, while according to employer, appellant, was having such power as to bring him out of definition of 'workman'
Both parties had led evidence in support of their respective case, but Labour Court had failed to examine the same
Labour Court on presumptions concluded that nature of job performed by appellant was such that he could not fall within the definition of "workman"
Held, it was necessary that evidence should have been considered and identified nature of job performed by appellant so as to assess as to whether he was or was not a "workman"
Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Labour Court to decide matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to parties.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Brief facts of the case are that appellant joined as a Chemist with the respondent concern. On 5-8-1997, he allegedly filed an application for leave w.e.f. 6-8-1997 to 6-10-1997 for appearing in M.A. Islamiat papers. He accordingly proceeded on leave and after the exams reported back on duty on 7-10-1997. Neither any refusal of leave was conveyed to him nor any other communication was sent to him. However, on his return he was informed that his services have been terminated, whereupon, on 2-12-1997 he sent a grievance notice to the respondents and then filed his grievance petition on 12-12-1997. After concluding trial the learned Labour Court vide order, dated 28-7-2003, dismissed appellant's grievance petition on the sole ground that appellant is not a workman within the meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The same is being assailed through the instant appeal.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the. learned Labour Court are based on presumptions as no evidence from either side was looked into by the learned Labour Court so as to ascertain the nature of job being performed by the appellant with the respondents. It is thus, contended that finding is based on presumptions and conjectures.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contents that there is no dispute with regard to the nature of job being performed by the appellants, therefore, there was no need to consult the evidence on record.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The parties on the question of nature of job are not in agreement. According to the appellant the work done by him is not of managerial or supervisory nature, while according to the respondents the appellant was having such powers as to bring him out of the definition of workman. Both the parties had led evidence in support of their respective case but the learned Labour Court had failed to examine the same and on presumptions concluded that nature of job being performed by the appellant was such that he could not fall within the definition of workman. In such-like case, it was necessary that the evidence should have been considered and identified the nature of job being performed by the appellant so as to assess as to whether he is or is not a workman.
6. For what has been stated above, this appeal is' allowed. The impugned order, dated 28-7-2003 is set aside. Resultantly, the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court who shall give a right of audience to both the parties and thereafter proceed to decide the case after going through the record as a whole. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M-653/L Appeal allowed.