Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 963 1976 SLD 963 1976 PLC 920
IIIrd Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Applications Nos. 465, 467 and 468 of 1976, decided on 2nd September, 1976.
MAKHDOOM SAIFUDDIN SIDDIQUI, PRESIDING OFFICER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALI KALOO

VS

MESSRS ABDULLAH SILK MILLS, KARACHI

Law:

Section:

1976 P L C 920 [Had Labour Court Sind] Present: Makhdoom Saifuddin Siddiqui, Presiding Officer MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALI KALOO versus MESSRS ABDULLAH SILK MILLS, KARACHI Applications Nos. 465, 467 and 468 of 1976, decided on 2nd September, 1976. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---S. 25-A-Scope-Termination of service by resignation-Dues also paid by employer-Relationship of master and servant ceasing-Re­instatement specifically not prayed -Claim only for some dues -Application under S. 25-A not entertainable-Proper forum Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936-Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15. Amjad S. Khan for Applicant. S. M. Yaqoob for Respondent. ORDER These are the three separate cases under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by three applicants Muhammad, Kaloo and Ashraf Ali for the enforcement of their rights guaranteed and secured to them under the law in respect of re-instatement in service with back benefits. By consent of the parties the cases were amalgamated and the cross­-examination in case of applicant Kaloo was treated as cross-examination in the rest of the cases and the evidence adduced in case of applicant Kaloo was also treated as evidence in other cases. Therefore it becomes necessary to dispose of all the three cases by one common order. The case of the applicants shortly put is that they were the permanent workers of the respondent and that the respondent closed down the mill without prior permission of the Labour Court and thereafter sought resignations from them by force which was clear cut infringment of rights guaranteed and secured to them under the provisions of law for which they put forth their grievance petitions to the respondent vide Annexure A but their request was not considered by the respondents hence the instant applications. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties and heard the arguments of learned representatives of the parties. At the very outset I would make it clear that although in the applications the relief sought by the applicants is also for the re-instatement in service. Whereas the applicant Kaloo in his cross-examination confined his relief to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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