1982 PLP 314 (PLC)
MOHAMMAD SHAM KHAN Versus MESSRS KARACHI MILK PLANT, HYDERABAD
| Citation | 1982 PLP 314 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD SHAM KHAN Versus MESSRS KARACHI MILK PLANT, HYDERABAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 314 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 314 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 314 (PLC) (MOHAMMAD SHAM KHAN Versus MESSRS KARACHI MILK PLANT, HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12 (3) Grievance petition before Labour Court‑Petitioner claiming return of academic certificate furnished by him at time of seeking emp loyment after termination of service‑Petition for such claim or prayer, held, not maintainable. Johnson ct Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed 1980 P L C 622 rel. Mohammad Ahmed for Appellant Date of hearing: 21st April, 1981. DECISION The sole point which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the appellant, whose services have admittedly been terminated by the Karachi Milk Plant, the respondents herein, is entitled to maintain a grievance petition for return to him of his original Matriculation Certifi cates which he claims had been submitted by him to the respondents at the time of his engagement by the respondents in 1967.
2. Since the appellant admittedly is no longer in the service of the respondents, his services having been terminated with effect from 14th January, 1980 he does not fall within the definition of "worker" as given in the
1. R. O. and hence is not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., as held by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed (1). It was, however, contended by Mr. Mohammad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant's grievance petition was maintainable under the Standing Orders. Apart from the fact that the learned counsel was unable to refer me to any provision of Standing Orders entitling the appellant to a return of his original Matriculation Certificate, the only provision contained in the Standing Orders regarding the filing of grievance petition is em bodied in clause (3) of Standing Order
12. The said clause, however restricted in its application to grievance in relation to termination of services and not be other right which the workman may have either under the Standing Orders or under other laws. As such, the grievance petition of the appellant is also not maintainable under clause (3) of Standing Order
12. This position is clear irrespective of the fact whether the Standing Orders are or are not applicable to employment under the res pondent establishment.
3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.