1988 PLP 371 (PLC)
ROSHAN Versus Messrs MACKINNON & MACKENZIE AND COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1988 PLP 371 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ROSHAN Versus Messrs MACKINNON & MACKENZIE AND COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 371 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 371 (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: 1988 PLP 371 (PLC) (ROSHAN Versus Messrs MACKINNON & MACKENZIE AND COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riaz Baloch for Appellant Masood Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th September, 1987.
- 5. I have heard Mr. Riaz Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. There is an admitted position that the appellant was not able to produce any cogent documentary or oral evidence to prove that he was an employee of the respondent establishment. It is also an admitted position that the appellant had himself miserably failed to summon any record from the respondent establishment from which he could prove his employment with the company. Admittedly the respondent establishment being an old and highly reputed shipping company used to maintain appointments, terminations, registers of salaries and other necessary records and documents. The bare word of the appellant that he was an employee of the company cannot be relied upon. Mr. Riaz Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant has no legs to stand in support of his case. I would, therefore, hold that there is nothing wrong with they impugned order and the learned Labour Court was quite right in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
Judgment & Decree
Riaz Baloch for Appellant Masood Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th September, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30‑9‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent driver of the respondent establishment since 1‑10‑1983 and that as he was not being paid certain available benefits, therefore, he sent grievance notices to the respondent establishment dated 13‑4‑1986 and 22‑4‑1986 respectively which were rejected by them saying that he was not at all an employee of them. Therefore, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before, the learned Labour Court.
3. The case of the respondent establishment was that the appellant was never an employee of the respondent establishment but he was a personal employee of one, Mr.S.M. Humayun Khan General Manager (Shipping) of the respondent establishment and so, he was removed A from the employment by him and not by the company. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined and thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Riaz Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. There is an admitted position that the appellant was not able to produce any cogent documentary or oral evidence to prove that he was an employee of the respondent establishment. It is also an admitted position that the appellant had himself miserably failed to summon any record from the respondent establishment from which he could prove his employment with the company. Admittedly the respondent establishment being an old and highly reputed shipping company used to maintain appointments, terminations, registers of salaries and other necessary records and documents. The bare word of the appellant that he was an employee of the company cannot be relied upon. Mr. Riaz Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant has no legs to stand in support of his case. I would, therefore, hold that there is nothing wrong with they impugned order and the learned Labour Court was quite right in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.E. /1094/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.