1993 PLP 263 (PLC)
SAREEN JAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 263 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal, |
| Parties | SAREEN JAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 263 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 263 (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: 1993 PLP 263 (PLC) (SAREEN JAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellant.
- A. Hafeez for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Case of employee as presented before Trial Court was that his services were verbally terminated by employer as there was some dispute between them about annual increment
Employer denying allegations had contended that employee earlier was working with them as a `Jobber' and as services of all Jobbers were to be terminated, employee himself tendered his resignation and applied afresh for appointment as an operator--Request of employee was acceded to, but he after working for a few months had lost interest in job of operator and resigned
Employer further contended that resignation of employee was accepted and all payments due to him were paid to him
Employers had fully supported their version by producing resignation of employee, application for re-appointment as operator and payments made to him at time he left job as a Jobber and later on as an operator
Employee could not deny receipts of payments and other documents produced by employers to prove their case and no support was forthcoming for version of employee from any quarters whatsoever--Employee having failed to prove his case, his grievance petition was rightly dismissed by Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1992. This appeal from the order of the Labour Court dismissing the grievance application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the IRO arises in the following circumstances:-- The case of the appellant as presented before the Labour Court was that he had been working with the respondent for a number of years and in the month of May, 1989 there was some dispute between them about the annual increment. To silence him, his services came to be terminated verbally.
2. All this came to be denied in the Written Reply. Shorn of unnecessary legal and factual contentions raised, suffice it to say that their case was that the petitioner was working as a jobber with them and because services of all the jobbers were to be terminated, the petitioner had tendered his resignation and applied afresh for appointment as an operator. The request was acceded to. However, after working for a few months he lost interest in the job and resigned. The resignation was accepted and all the payments due to him were paid out. The question of any removal under the circumstances was wide of the mark.
3. The appellant was his own witness, and Iqbal Dinar Factory Manager of the respondent appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. The appellant does not deny his signatures which are in English, or the thumb-impressions oil the documents which have been brought on the record from R-4 to R-11. These are his applications for appointment, acceptance of the payments made to him at the time he left the job as a jobber and inter on as an operator.
5. All that has been said by the appellant was that his signatures and thumb-impressions had been obtained by the respondent during the course of his employment which have been utilized subsequently for his ouster. There is no support forthcoming for the version of the appellant from any quarters whatsoever. It is to be seen that he admits that he had been working as jobber and all the jobbers had been removed from employment earlier. He admits also, that at the relevant time he was working as an operator.
7. The version conceded by the appellant approximates with the version as put' forward by the respondent that he was working as jobber before he came to be re-employed as an operator. There are receipts of payments on both the occasions. The burden lay on the appellant to put some construction on his allegations. That has not been even attempted. On the other hand the respondents have a certain reputation to save. To accept that they stooped to, such a scandalously fraudulent behavior would not pass muster unless properly established which is not the case here.
8. I will therefore uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2108/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.