1995 PLP 49 (PLC)
Messrs AZAD PAPERS LIMITED, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 49 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs AZAD PAPERS LIMITED, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 49 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 49 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 49 (PLC) (Messrs AZAD PAPERS LIMITED, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khadim Hussain for Appellant.
- Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated verbally. considering him as temporary‑‑‑Letter of appointment of employee talked about annual increment and it has also mentioned in the said letter that if services of employee proved to be satisfactory, he would be entitled to additional increment‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances, was a permanent employee and not temporary as claimed by employers and his services could not be terminated verbally. Indus Steel Pipes Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1992 PLC 657 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondents Date of hearing: 13th September, 1994. This appeal from the order of the Labour Court No. V, at Karachi ordring reinstatement of the petitioner has arisen in the following circumstances:‑.‑ The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on the 1st of July, 1992. It is alleged that his services came to be terminated verbally on 30‑11‑1992. He had preferred a petition challenging the termination before the Labour Court which came to be allowed.
2. The entire argument of Mr. Khadim Hussain counsel for the appellant revolves around the word temporary appointment and looking to the letter of appointment which is on the record I fail to understand how the appellant by any stretch of imagination can be considered to be temporary. The letter of appointment talks about annual increment next July, It also mentions that if his services proved to be satisfactory he would be entitled to additional increment.
3. The fact is not disputed that there was no order in writing. I had therefore not called upon Mr. Khalilur Rehman learned representative for the respondent to address.
4. Manifestly he was a permanent employee and under the law its services could not be terminated verbally. There is ample law on the subject. Mr. Khadim Hussain cited the case of Indus Steel Pipes Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1992 PLC
657. That has no application whatsoever. The. appeal is .devoid of all merit and stands dismissed.
5. I will therefore affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2356/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.