1992PLC515 (PLP)
ABDUL JABBAR Versus SECOND SINDH LABOUR COURT and another
| Citation | 1992PLC515 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR Versus SECOND SINDH LABOUR COURT and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992PLC515 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992PLC515 (PLP)?
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: 1992PLC515 (PLP) (ABDUL JABBAR Versus SECOND SINDH LABOUR COURT and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- NA. Bukhari for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Applicant claiming to be employee of respondent, filed complaint before Labour Court for prosecution of respondent on ground that respondent was indulging in unfair Labour practice
Respondent had denied relationship of employer and employee between parties
Applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his assertion that he was employee of respondent-- Complaint of applicant was rightly dismissed by Labour Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NA. Bukhari for Appellant. Date of hearing: 27th January, 1992. The applicant states to have been an employee of the respondent company and had started the formation of the trade union which was not liked by the management. His services were therefore abruptly terminated. Even his application for the 'registration of the union had been refused by the Registrar.
2. It was thereafter that the application had filed a complaint before the Labour Court for the prosecution of the respondent on the ground that he was indulging in unfair labour practice.
3. The learned Labour Court had issued process and also examined witness at the preliminary enquiry proceedings. It was at this stage that an application was filed on behalf of the respondent that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
4. Apart from the respondent, another person by the name of Yousuf was examined. None of these 2 persons had any documentary evidence in support of the assertions that they were employees of the company.
5. In the circumstances there would have been no point in drawing the regular proceedings. The Labour Court rightly dismissed the complaint and no interference is called for. I will therefore, dismiss the Revision application summarily. H.B.T./2016/Lb.S Revision dismissed.