| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 1593 1977 SLD 1593 1977 PLC 220 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-87 of 1976, heard on 27th October 1976.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-87 of 1976, heard on 27th October 1976.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PANJATAN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
VS
MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 25-A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(3), provision-Re-instatement -- Loose sheet of paper allegedly, inserted subsequently into register of workers produced by employer-Employer's witness not confronted with such loose paper-Such paper also never properly brought on record-Lower Tribunal, held, not justified in relying upon such document-Standing Orders Ordinance also not allegedly applicable to case in view of proviso to S. 1(3) of Ordinance Case remanded to lower Tribunal for confronting employers' witness with loose sheet paper as well as for consideration of plea relating to application of proviso to S. 1(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance. Abdul Hai v. Messrs S. K. M. Industries, Karachi and another 1976 PLC723ref. Masood Mirza for Appellant. S. Safdar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th October 1976. DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement on the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O. 2. The appellants are running a Rolling Mill. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. According to the allegations made by the respondent he was verbally removed from service and was not permitted to enter the factory and work there. He, therefore, served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. 3. The application was resisted and various objections were taken. 4. One of the objections which was taken was that the appellant employed less than 20 workmen and, therefore, Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable. 5. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant was employing more than 20 workmen and, therefore, the plea of the appellant was rejected. Reliance was mainly placed upon a sheet of paper pinned in the register showing that there were 25 workers. The register itself, which was produced in evidence. showed that not more than 16…
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