1990 PLP 45 (PLC)
SIBTE ZAHID NAOV BOILER OPERATOR Versus IV SIND LABOUR COURT AT KARACHI through its Presiding Officer and another
| Citation | 1990 PLP 45 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Aliened All U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SIBTE ZAHID NAOV BOILER OPERATOR Versus IV SIND LABOUR COURT AT KARACHI through its Presiding Officer and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 45 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 45 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Aliened All U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 45 (PLC) (SIBTE ZAHID NAOV BOILER OPERATOR Versus IV SIND LABOUR COURT AT KARACHI through its Presiding Officer and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Scope‑‑Applicant in his grievance application prayed for issuance of direction that action of management in striking out name of particular doctor from panel was illegal and mala fide and for issuance of direction that applicant be allowed to have medical treatment from that particular doctor‑‑No provision of law was pointed out under which applicant was entitled to get medical treatment from a particular doctor or particular doctor's name be maintained in list of panel‑‑No settlement or award showing guaranteeing the right to nave treatment from said doctor had been cited in grievance application‑ Labour Court below, held, rightly found that removal of doctor from panel could not be the grievance of workman to seek relief under S.25‑A of the Ordinance. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 35 & 36‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Powers of Labour Court‑‑Labour Court, held, could not go into allegation as to whether management had taken bribe while nominating or removing name of particular doctor from list of panel of doctors.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 35 & 36‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Powers of Labour Court‑‑Labour Court, held, could not go into allegation as to whether management had taken bribe while nominating or removing name of particular doctor from list of panel of doctors. Nemo for Appellant. Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1989. The appellant is called absent without intimation upto 11‑00 a.m. though date was given in his presence on 29‑5‑1989.
2. This appeal is against the order, dated 1‑3‑1989, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, whereby he dismissed in limine, the grievance application under section 25‑A (2) of the I.R.O., 1969.
3. The appellant in his grievance application had prayed for investigation that the action of the respondents in striking out name of Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Nadeem from the panel agency list was illegal and mala fide and set aside the same and issue directions to the respondents to re‑call the order and allow the applicant medical treatment from the said doctor.
4. Under section 25‑A of the 1.R.0. a worker can bring his grievance in respect of any right, guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, award or settlement for time being in force before the Labour Court to seek relief. There is no provision of law under which the appellant is entitled to get medial aid from a particular doctor or particular doctor's name be maintained in the list of panel. Similarly no settlement or award guaranteeing this right to the doctor or the appellant has been cited in the grievance application itself. Under the circumstances the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the removal of the doctor from the panel cannot be the grievance of the worker to seek relief under section 25‑A, I.R.O. The Labour Courts cannot go in the allegation as to whether the management has taken any bribe while nominating or removing the names of doctor from the panel.
5. I find no merits in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1477/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.