1995 PLP 99 (PLC)
JAWAID ATIQUE and others Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FOURTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 99 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | JAWAID ATIQUE and others Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FOURTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 99 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 99 (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 99 (PLC) (JAWAID ATIQUE and others Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FOURTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellants.
- Abdus Samad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Pay scale‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Employees were appointed fitters in Pay Group V through letter stating terms and conditions of appointment which conditions were duly accepted by employees‑‑‑Employees demanded that they be promoted to Pay Group VI‑‑‑Anomaly Committee was constituted to examine claims of employees, and Anomaly Committee, after due deliberation had given its report in which employees were not found entitled to be promoted to Pay Group VI in view of their lack of required educational qualifications and experience‑‑‑No question was of any mala fides or injustice discernible even remotely on part of employers‑‑‑Employees, in circumstances were rightly denied Pay Group VI as they were not qualified for the same at relevant time.
Judgment & Decree
6. Some anomalies had arisen and an Anamoly Committee had been constituted to examine the claims. After due deliberation, it had given its report and cases where entitlements were not commensurate to the qualifications had been put right. The memorandum is on the record and shows as to what would be the proper pay scale with different educational qualifications and past experience. The relevant position reads as under:‑ "III. (1) Matric with 12/15 months Trg + 2 years' Exp.) (2)??????? Matric with 6/9 months Trg. + 3 years'. Exp.) (3)??????? Matric + 3 years' Exp.) (4)??????? Middle with 12/15 months Trg. + 3 years' Exp.) Pg. 5. (5)??????? Middle with 6/9 months Trg. + 4 years' Exp.) (6)??????? Middle + 5 years' Exp.) (7)??????? Less than Middle + 7 years' Exp.) ???????????
7. Now the cases in which the Pay Scale had been revised were because of their experience which had some how not been properly examined. There is no question of any mala fide or injustice discernible even remotely. They are working in Pay Scale VI now but on Time Scale Promotion. They were denied Pay Group VI initially because they were not qualified for the same.
8. There is no merit in the appeals. I will therefore affirm the orders and dismiss the appeals. H‑B.T./2376/Lb: S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.