Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLD 3019 = 1972 PLC 281
Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal
Appeal No. KAR-660 of 1971, decided on 28th September 1971.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal
H. Young & Company v. The Mayor and Corporation of Royal Leamington, S.P.A. 1883 A. C 517 rel. M. A. Khan for Appellant. S. P. Lodhi for
Respondent. Masood Mirza, Ghulam Hassan Shaukat Ali Nanji, S. M. Yaqoob, Fakhruddin Farooqi and Mahmood A. Ghani, Representa tives of the Employers: Amicus curiae. A. Majeed, Dr. Muhammad Shafi, Wasi Ahmad, Malik Mohammad Saeed, Representatives of the Employees: Amlcus curiae.

UNITED ORIENTAL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, KARACHI

VERSUS

NOOR GUL

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 34, 37

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (VXIII of 1969) Ss. 34 & 37 [as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (XIX of 1970)]-Determination of application of individual workman under S. 34 - An award -- Appealable under S. 37. Abbas Ali Shah v. West Pakistan Water and Power Develop ment Authority, Lahore and 2 others 1970 P L C 373 distinguished. (b) Interpretation of statutes Acts to be construed on assump tion that Legislature knew existing state of law. Date of hearing: 10th September 1971.                                                                                                                               DECISION Tills is an appeal against an order of the learned First Labour Court, Karachi, dated July 13, 1971, whereby the learned Court ordered the appellant to pay one month's notice pay and four months' wages as gratuity. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these. 2. The respondent, Noor Gul, was employed as a Driver by the appellant-Company. It is alleged by the respondent that he received a letter on 15th March 1971, from the Personnel Officer of the Company that his service had been terminated with effect from 15th March 1971. On the other hand, the cast of the appellant-Company that the respondent had submitted his resignation on 15th March 1971, which was accepted by the Company by a letter of the same date. The respondent claimed that he did not resign and, therefore, he was entitled to re-instatement or in the alternative for the payment of his legal dues, that is. Earned Wags, Notice Pay,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register