1996 PLP 229 (PLC)
ISLAMABAD and another Versus SHAIQ MIRZA
| Citation | 1996 PLP 229 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ISLAMABAD and another Versus SHAIQ MIRZA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 229 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 229 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 229 (PLC) (ISLAMABAD and another Versus SHAIQ MIRZA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellants.
- Rana Mehmood Ali, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)
Employee working as Sales Representative, was getting a salary of Rs.1,000 p.m., Rs.60 per day as commission and Rs. 15 per day as Daily Allowance
Employee, as Sales Representative was to travel and obtain orders for "employer's products-- Job of employee, thus was not of manual or clerical nature and by no stretch of imagination he could .be called a worker
Grievance petition filed- by employee against his termination was not maintainable in circumstances. I.E. Saleh v. International Laboratories PLD 1975 Kar. 279 and PLD 1977 SC 237 ref.
Judgment & Decree
I.E. Saleh v. International Laboratories PLD 1975 Kar. 279 and PLD 1977 SC 237 ref. Dr. Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellants. Rana Mehmood Ali, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1995. The respondent was transferred from Hyderabad to Islamabad where he refused to go and his services were terminated. He filed grievance petition before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. 1t was allowed and he was ordered to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits.
2. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the respondent Shaiq Mirza, Sales Representative of Modern Food Industries Ltd., Islamabad is a worker within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. The respondent was getting a salary of Rs.1,000 per month and Rs.60 per day as Commission and Daily Allowance of Rs.15 per day if he remained at the Headquarters. As Sales Representative his duty was to travel and obtain orders for the employers' products. His job was not therefore of manual or clerical nature. By no stretch of imagination can he be called a labourer or a worker. In PLD 1975 Kar. 279 I.E. Saleh v. International Laboratories it was held by Abdul Haee Qureshi, J. that the Sales Representative employed in any commercial establishment cannot be termed to be a workman as to have the protection of Standing Orders under the said Ordinance.
3. The learned Representative for the worker has referred to a decision reported in PLD 1977 SC 237 that the Salesman in a Tea Company having to go round the market for distributional sale and to submit returns to the Manager Incharge is a workman, but the facts of the present case are quite different. The respondent was not working as salesman for distribution of tea but he was travelling as Sales Representative for the region for obtaining orders.
4. Under the circumstances the grievance petition of the respondent was not maintainable. Under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. the order of the Labour Court directing re‑instatement of the respondent and allowing back benefits is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./2565/Lb.S Appeal allowed.