1994 PLP 81 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus M/s. HINO PAK MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 81 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus M/s. HINO PAK MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 81 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 81 (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 81 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus M/s. HINO PAK MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant.
- M.L. Shahani for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Petitioner had alleged that his services had been terminated as he along-with other workers had formed a union and informed the Organisation about their intention to get it registered. Organisation in its written reply had denied relationship of employee and employer between parties contending that petitioner was employee of contractors‑‑‑Petitioner had himself produced an agreement showing that he was a contractor of Organisation‑‑‑Grievance petition of petitioner was rightly dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
M.L. Shahani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1993. DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. III dismissing the petition filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O. It arose in the following circumstances:
2. It was alleged that the petitioner and the other workers of the respondent had formed a union and informed the organisation about their intention to get it registered. Their ire had been raised and peremptorily his services were terminated verbally on the 30th of May, 1988. Eventually he had filed a petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondents in their written reply denied that the petitioner had anything to do with them; the petitioner was in the employ of their contractors in the name and style of M/s. Alkhair Services.
4. The petition came to be dismissed as the petitioner himself produced an agreement which was to the effect that, he was a contractor of the respondent.
5. This version of the appellant demonstrably militates with the version of the petitioner that he had chosen to adopt.
6. There is no merit in this appeal and I will dismiss it. H.B.T./2234/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.