1997 PLP 396 (PLC)
SHER MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs IQBAL SILK FACTORY, KARACHI
| Citation | 1997 PLP 396 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs IQBAL SILK FACTORY, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 396 (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 396 (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 396 (PLC) (SHER MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs IQBAL SILK FACTORY, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
- Malik Sharif Ahmed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1996,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4)(a)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Employer by producing attendance register and payment of wages register had fully proved that at no stage he had employed twenty or more than twenty workers in his factory and employee had failed to prove that twenty‑six employees were employed in factory‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, had rightly concluded that grievance petition filed >by employee against his dismissal was not maintainable as West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to his case‑‑‑Evidence on record having fully proved that employee had himself left factory, he could not be re‑instated in service.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Sharif Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1996, This worker's appeal is directed against the judgment of the Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the worker under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, for his reinstatement in service of Iqbal Silk Factory and back benefits.
2. It is the case of Sher Muhammad, worker, the appellant, that he was permanent workman alongwith 25 other workers in the respondent factory. Prior to their appointments in the factory he and the other workers were made to sign blank sheets of paper and some blank vouchers, therefore, on 6‑7‑1987 they sent their complaint to Labour Welfare Department for action against the respondents but as soon as the news about this complaint reached the respondents their services were terminate. They, had, therefore, filed applications under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. However, only one worker Sher Muhammad had fled this appeal.
3. Iqbal Ahmed, Proprietor of Iqbal Silk Factory, stated that he manufactured coarse cloth on power‑looms. He; therefore, employed less than 20 workers and the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to his factory but it was governed by the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner had himself left the service of the respondents and collected his dues in full and final settlement but afterwards' he had preferred this appeal under the I.R.O.
4. The petitioner had stated that there were 26 employees in the respondent factory but he had failed to examine any one of them to prove that there were more than 20 persons employed. On the other hand the respondent produced his attendance register of one year from July, 1986 to June, 1987 and the payment of wages register for the said period and it was shown that at no stage the respondent had employed 20 or more than twenty workers in his factory. Admittedly the respondent's son Nasir was running another Section of the Factory but it had not been alleged that Nasir's factory was part of one and the same factory. The learned Labour Court, therefore, found that less than twenty workers were employed and the Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply to Iqbal Silk Factory.
5. It is true that apart from the appellant no other worker has been examined in support of the contention that the appellant's services were terminated on the basis of the resignation which was written on the blank paper on which the appellant's signature was obtained before his appointment. The payment voucher also bears the signature of the appellant. There is, therefore, overwhelming evidence o support the case of the respondent that the appellant had himself left the factory. There, is no substance in this appeal which is, accordingly dismissed and the order of the I Labour Court is maintained. H.B.T./149/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.