1992 PLP 1292 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1292 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1292 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1292 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1992 PLP 1292 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Al-haj Farid Gul Khan for Appellant.
- Noor Ahmed, Administrative Officer for Respondent No. 1.
- None for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Relationship of employer and employee
Existence of
Petitioner/employee filed grievance petition against respondent who in his written statement denied relationship of employer and employee between parties
On appellant's own showing he had no documentary evidence by way of Identity Card, Attendance Card or Social Security Card
Appellant had himself conceded before Trial Court that he was appointed by contractor of respondent and contractor was paying wages to him
Grievance petition filed by petitioner/appellant against respondent, was rightly dismissed by Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 15th April, 1992. This appeal from the order of the Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the application under section 25-A IRO filed by the appellant arises in the following circumstance:
1. It was alleged that the appellant was employed by the respondent No. 1 in the Weaving Section of the Mill on 1-1-1981 but the Identity Card was issued in the name of one Gul Baz the respondent No. 2 alleged to be a contractor with whom he had nothing to do. As the appellant was being denied all the benefits and privileges of a permanent workman of the respondent mill he had occasionally remonstrated and thereby incurred their wrath.
2. On 15-10-1989 he was gate-stopped while proceeding for the duty. Thereupon he had sent grievance notices to both the respondents and finding no satisfaction from them had filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondent No. l in their Written Statement denied any relationship with the appellant. Their case was that the Weaving Section was on lease with the contractor and they knew nothing about the alleged happening of 15-10-1989. The contractor also filed a Written Statement and maintained that he had terminated the services of the appellant because of continued absence without leave.
4. The appellant was the solitary witness. Shah Zarin who had filed his affidavit-in-evidence was later on dropped, and was not made available for cross-examination. There was one witness on behalf of the respondent.
5. On the appellant's own showing he had no documentary evidence by way of Identity Card, Attendance Card or Social Security Card. Before the Labour Court he stated that: "It is a fact that the respondent No. 2 Gul Baz Khan had appointed me and used to pay me wages and also, supervise my work. I was appointed on 1-1-1981 " He goes on further to say that for all these periods he had never complained to anybody that he was being denied the benefits or privileges of a regular workman of the mill." This clinches the matter. I see therefore no merit in this appeal and hereby dismiss the same. H.B.T./2049/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.