1994 PLP 623 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YAOOOB Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 623 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAOOOB Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 623 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 623 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 623 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YAOOOB Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazhar Ali B. Chohan for Appellant.
- Abdus Samad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee in his grievance petition had alleged that though he had been working with employer since 1984, his services had not been regularised‑‑‑Employee having himself admitted in his cross‑examination that he was working with another employer since 1992, and evidence produced by employers in that respect also having remained unchallenged, grievance petition filed by employee, was not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
Mazhar Ali B. Chohan for Appellant. Abdus Samad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994. The appellant had filed a petition before the Labour Court on the allegation that though he had been working since 1984 yet his services were not being regularized.
2. He had admitted in the cross‑examination that he was working with Continental Services since April 1992. Even the witness of the respondent namely Ilyas Ahmad Siddiqui, Assistant Manager in the Stores Department has not been cross‑examined.
3. Patently the petition was not maintainable and was properly dismissed. There is no merit in the appeal and stands dismissed. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2339/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.