| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 3044 = 1974 SLD 3044 = 1974 PLC 271 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR: 146 of 1974, heard on 13th July 1974.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal
Syed Hamid Ali for Appellant. Aftab Ahmed.41vi for
Respondent.
Appeal No. KAR: 146 of 1974, heard on 13th July 1974.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal
Syed Hamid Ali for Appellant. Aftab Ahmed.41vi for
Respondent.
HABIB AHMED QURESHI
VERSUS
WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 25-A
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25-A [as introduced by Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance (1X of 1972) -Redress of individual grievance-Workman removed from service prior to introduction of S. 25-A-Period of grievance notice expiring after promulgation of amendment-Cause of action continuing even after introduction of S. 25-A-Application under S. 25-A, in circumstances, held, maintainable. 1974 P L C 80 distinguished. (b) Industrial-dispute Review-Whether Labour Court can review its own order-Power of review inherent-Labour Court competent to review its order Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A. Date of hearing: 13th July 1974. DECISION This is an appeal against an Award dated- the 26th of March 1974, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, under section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance. The appellant Mr. Habib Ahmed Qureshi was employed by letter dated the 26th of December 1966, (Exh. R-3)as Assistant Manager (Stores P. M. T. F. Landhi) The learned Court held that the appellant was not a workman and therefore, not entitled to any relief under section 25-A of the Ordinance an3 dismissed his application. 2. Mr. Syed Hamid Ali, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended in the first place that the provision of the law, which the learned Labour Court applied was not the law, at the tine when the services of the appellant were terminated. The services of the appellant were terminated on the 6th of April, 1972; by the Assistant Secretary for the Secretary. The definition of workman at the relevant time when appellant's services were terminated was that if a person did not fall within the category of an…