1995 PLP 98 (PLC)
SHER AZAM Versus M/s. GHULAM NABI ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 98 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SHER AZAM Versus M/s. GHULAM NABI ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 98 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 98 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 98 (PLC) (SHER AZAM Versus M/s. GHULAM NABI ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sharif Ahmed Malik for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th October, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Gratuity‑‑‑Entitlement to‑‑‑Employee who was removed from service, did not pray for his re‑instatement in his grievance petition as he had found employment elsewhere, but claimed payment of gratuity and other dues‑‑ Claim of employee was denied by employer contending that number of workers with him were below 20 and as such petition of employee was not maintainable under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Employee having failed to prove that number of workers with employer was more than twenty, his petition was rightly dismissed by Court below. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. Sharif Ahmed Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th October, 1994. The appellant had filed a grievance application alleging that he had been removed by the respondents from service as a Turner, but there was no prayer for re‑instatement as he had found employment elsewhere. He had however claimed a sum of Rs.1,91,738.16 towards gratuity and other dues. The petition was contested on a number of grounds but all that needs mention here is that as the number of workers with the respondents was below 20, the petition was not maintainable under the Standing Orders Ordinance. This contention had prevailed before the Labour Court and the petition was dismissed. 2. it is true that the appellant had mentioned in his affidavit‑in‑evidence that there were 29 workers whom he had named and 5 unnamed helpers, but there was a denial to the existence of quite a number of them. Nobody has been produced from amongst them or from outside. The appellant was also confronted with the Attendance Register, the Wage Register and the Bhatta Register.
3. Ghulam Nabi, the Proprietor of the concern was not tested in cross -examination about their authenticity. The latter had also mentioned that he was submitting his returns to the Government six monthly, as required under the Factories Act and had shown his readiness even to produce the requisite record. No demand was made for its submission.
4. There being nothing beyond the words of the appellant in support of his version, the petition was rightly dismissed. There being no substance, I will maintain the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2375/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.