Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 99 1976 SLD 99 1976 PLC 901
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 799 of 1974, decided on 24th May 1974.
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J
Mahboob Ahmed for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad for
Respondent.

MESSRS SETHI STRAW BOARD MILLS LTD.

VS

PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 3, LYALLPUR AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- --- S. 25-A(6)-Redress of individual grievances - Termination of services of workman not governed by S. 25-A(6)-Notice of grievance, held, not necessary in such case. Crescent Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Haft Muhammad and others W. P. No. 1413 of 1975 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- -- Art. 199-Finding of fact recorded by two Courts below based on evidence-Held, not open to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. (c) Estoppel---- No estoppel against statute. (d) Interpretation of statutes- Provisions of statute cannot be overridden by agreement. (e) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- S. 25-A-Redressal of individual grievances-Workman on termina­tion of services even after receiving his dues can still lay claim for what was due to him but was not paid. ORDER The employer has, by this petition under Article 199 of the Con­stitution, challenged the decision of the Junior Labour Court dated 19-1-1974, affirmed on appeal by the Labour Court on 30-4-1974, directing the re-instatement of respondent No. 3, its employee, with back benefits. 2. The facts of the case are the Mr. Munawar Ahmad Javed respondent was employed as a Chargeman by the petitioner on 25-3-1968 and was promoted as a Shift Chemist on 1-3-1970. He was entrusted on 1-8-1972 with powers to grant and reject leave applications of the workers under him, was also authorised to charge-sheet, call for explanation and discharge workers and was made wholly and solely incharge of his section in his shift. It was made clear in the same order that he did not fall within the definition of workman as contained in section 2, clause (iii) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. His services were, however, terminated as no longer required from 28-9-1973 and he was paid his dues. He thereafter instituted an application under section 25-A within the month of the termination order and his termination of service was held to be not in accordance with law applicable to a worker. The appeal of the petitioner also failed. Hence this constitutional petition. 3. The petitioner has mainly taken up…
🔒
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