| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2798 2016 SLD 2798 2016 PLC 163 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Labour Appeal No. MN-586 of 2012, Dated: 18th December, 2014.
SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, CHAIRMAN
Qaisar Ameer Khan for Appellants. Mumtaz Khan Baloch for
Respondent.
Labour Appeal No. MN-586 of 2012, Dated: 18th December, 2014.
SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, CHAIRMAN
Qaisar Ameer Khan for Appellants. Mumtaz Khan Baloch for
Respondent.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAREEN TRADERS AND ANOTHER
VS
SARDAR KHAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R.2---Pleadings, scope---"Pleadings", normally did not include "evidence", but it would refer the material, factual and legal aspects, which were to be proved by the parties during the trial. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(xxviii), 25-A & 37(3)---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i), S. O.12--- Termination of service---Grievance petition---"Workman"--- Determination---Employer had terminated services of employee (Chokidar) on the allegation that he was found sleeping during duty hours, without holding any enquiry-against him and without affording an opportunity of hearing---Grievance petition filed by the employee against termination was resisted by the employer, mainly on the ground that same was not competent as the employee did not fall within the definition of "workman"---Grievance petition filed by the employee was allowed by the Labour Court--- Validity---Employee, as Chowkidar, was to perform his duties, not only as a Watchman, but he had to personally search the people approaching the Mills premises---Employee, in circumstances, had to perform such manual work; and being an employee of a category of a lowest grade, having no supervisory power, could safely be taken as workman and he had competently filed grievance petition---To prove allegation of negligently performance of duties by the employee on basis of which his services were terminated, employer had produced a witness---Statement of said witness, which was -based on hearsay, lacked in material aspects to prove allegation beyond any shadow of doubt---Labour Court, discarded said statement---Labour Court while reinstating the employee, his 50% back benefits, were rightly withheld---Observation of the Labour Court being quite reasonable and justified, appeal being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances. Mohammad Ali v. Mills Manager National Embroidery Mills Ltd., Faisalabad 1984 PLC 1100; Azam Khan v. Director, Grace Apperal (Pvt.) Ltd. 2001 PLC 515; Irshad Begum v. Mohammad Rafique PLD 2010 Lah. 649; Khadim Hussain and others v. M/s Fauji Suger Mills 1981 PLC…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492