1994 PLP 621 (PLC)
M/s. LUNA GARMENTS, KARACHI Versus ISHRAT ALI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 621 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. LUNA GARMENTS, KARACHI Versus ISHRAT ALI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 621 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 621 (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 621 (PLC) (M/s. LUNA GARMENTS, KARACHI Versus ISHRAT ALI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Humayun for Appellant..
- Iftikharul Haque Awan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Re‑instatement with back benefits‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑ Services of employee were terminated abruptly without any prior notice or holding any enquiry‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by employee against his termination was resisted by employer on ground of delay and absence of any relationship of employer and employee between the parties‑‑‑Attendance carol duly signed on behalf of employer had fully established that employee had been working with employers for the last about two years‑‑‑Alleged delay in filing grievance petition had also not been pressed by employers‑‑‑Court below had correctly found that employee was working with employers and was verbally removed from employment which could not be done under the law‑‑ Employee was rightly reinstated with full back benefits in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1994. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. I, Karachi, reinstating the petitioner in his employment with back benefits. The circumstances in which the appeal arose, in short, are as follows.
2. It was alleged that the petitioner was working with the respondent as O.D. Checker from 18‑2‑1990 but without a letter of appointment. His services came to be terminated abruptly on 9‑4‑1992 and he was kept guessing as to why things had come to such a pass. He, later, served a grievance notice and then filed the petition: The petition was resisted on the grounds of delay and the absence of any relationship between the parties.
3. The petitioner was his own witness. Rehan Salam, Administrative Manager appeared on behalf of the respondents.
4. The respondent had produced the Acknowledgement due card with a .signature thereon. Rehan Salam admitted that the address on the envelope was correctly mentioned as that of their factory. The denial of the service was nothing more than ritualistic, and was properly disallowed by the Labour Court.
5. Rehan Salam was confronted with two attendance cards in the name of the respondent. It is true that he denied that the respondent was either working in their factory or that these were issued to him, but did not pick up the courage to deny that the attendance cards did not emanate from their establishment. These cards pertained to December, 1991 and April, 1992. The respondent had stated that these were duly signed by Shahid Ibrahim and Tahir. It was not suggested to him in the cross‑examination that persons named by him were not working for the respondents. Obviously the burden had shifted to the appellants and it cannot be said that they had succeeded in displacing the same. I agree with the Labour Court that the respondent was working with the respondent and was verbally removed from their employment which could not be done under the law.
6. Mr. Humayun also contended that it was not a fit case for the grant of full back benefits. The respondent had stated that the removal from service had made it difficult for the family to make out their existence.
7. There is no conceivable reason as to why it can be denied to him. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2338/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.