1994 PLP 83 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 83 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 83 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 83 (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 83 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Iqbal for Appellant.
- Latif Saghar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Service of employee was terminated on ground that post of fitter on which employee was working had been abolished as same had become redundant‑‑‑Witness appearing on behalf of employers was not tested by employee in cross‑examination with regard to need of job of fitter in Mill or that there had been any replacement of his vacancy‑‑‑Employee also did not say that any fitter was junior to him‑‑‑No suggestion of any mala fides or ulterior motive in removal of employee was made‑‑‑Grievance petition of employee against his termination from service was rightly dismissed by Court.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 29th September, 1993. DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., which arose in the following circumstances:
2. It is alleged that the petitioner was working as a fitter with the respondent for a few years. He was made to work overtime but there was no overtime payment, or the Cost of Living Allowance and other benefits. Out of frustration he had repeated his claim, and protested on this niggardly attitude of the respondent as a result whereof on 13‑1‑1990, he was verbally removed from their employment. He had, therefore, sent a grievance notice and finding no satisfaction filed the petition before the Labour Court.
3. The stand of the respondents in the written statement was that his services had been terminated in writing on 16‑1‑1990 as the post of fitter had become redundant and had therefore been abolished. It was further alleged that the grievance notice given by him was altogether irrelevant for the purpose of the case and there being no proper notice the petition was liable to be dismissed.
4. The petitioner was his own witness. Abdullah, a partner of the mill appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. The appellant in his cross‑examination admits the receipt of the termination letter. He must have got news about the impending loss of the job and ran off with the grievance notice. The objection raised against the validity of the notice, technically speaking, is not without weight but in the circumstances of the case that will not by itself put him out of the Court. To my mind the matter would properly be judged on merit.
6. Abdullah was not tested in cross‑examination with regard to the need of the job of the fitter in the mill or that there had been any replacement of his vacancy. He also does not say that there was any fitter junior to him. There is also not even a valid suggestion of any mala fides or ulterior motive in his removal.
7. I will, therefore, maintain the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2238/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.