PLC 2000

2000 PLP 230 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD LAIQ KHAN Versus Messrs HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeal No.KAR-131 of 1998, decided on 10th February, 1999,
Honorable Judges
Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2000 PLP 230 (PLC)
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman
Parties MUHAMMAD LAIQ KHAN Versus Messrs HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another
Primary Law Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 230 (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 2000 PLP 230 (PLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 230 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD LAIQ KHAN Versus Messrs HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Representation

  • Khadim Hussain for Appellant.
  • M. Latif Saghar for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 10th February, 1999.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A

Workman

Determination-.--Grievance petition-- Maintainability

Labour, Court dismissed grievance petition filed by employee against termination of his service holding him Supervisor/Incharge of Department concerned simply on basis of termination letter in which employee was shown as Supervisor/Incharge of Department by employer-- Employer had not produced any other documentary evidence in proof of his claim

Appointment letter and roaster of duties which were basic documents were not produced by employer

Order of Labour Court whereby grievance petition was dismissed holding employee as Supervisor/Incharge, was sketchy and not inspiring confidence

Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of Labour Court, remanded matter to be decided afresh by asking employer to produce said two documents.

Judgment & Decree

Khadim Hussain for Appellant. M. Latif Saghar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1999. This is an appeal against the decision dated 2‑4‑1998 passed by the learned Third Sindh Labour Court Karachi dismissing the Grievance Application No. 67 of 1996 under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O. 1969.

2. I have heard M/s Khadim Hussain for the appellant` and M. Latif Saghar for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the impugned order and submitted that the learned Labour Court was wrong in observing that "the record proves that the applicant was working as Supervisor/Incharge of the Departments." Except the Termination Letter placed on record describing the status of the appellant as supervisor/Incharge of the Coolie Department, there is no documentary evidence to support the view taken by the learned Labour Court. I think, the basic evidence in this Case which, probably, has been withheld by the respondent is the appointment letter and the Roaster of duties. The impugned order to my mind is sketchy and does not inspire confidence. Justice should not only be done but appears to have been done.

4. I would, therefore, in the interest of justice, remand this case to the learned Labour Court No. III Karachi to summon the respondent as Court witness to produce the aforesaid two documents or any other documents which the learned Labour Court thinks necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./288‑K/Lab (Tirb.) Order accordingly