Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3022 = 1981 SLD 3022 = 1981 PLC 18
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-228 of 1980, beard on 20th April, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
Ch. Rashid Ahmed for Appellant.

KHUDAD KHAN

VERSUS

MESSRS NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION Co.

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 25-A

Law: West Pakistan Commercial and Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Section: 12, 2(i)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25-A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12 and S. 2(i) Dismissal or termination of service-Remedy against-Petition to Labour Court-.Petitioner should be a workman as defined under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and not under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968 Chowkidar----Not a workman-Petition against alleged wrongful dis missal of Chowkidar-Not maintainable. Shahzar Khan v. Sind Labour Court 1976 P L C 196 distinguished. Shahzar Khan v. Sind Labour Court 1977 S C M R 103 rel. Date of hearing : 20th April, 1980.                                                                                                                                                                                                   DECISION This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Fifth Labour Court, given on 11'-3-1980, dismissing the grievance petition preferred by the appellant against the termination of his services by the respondent establish ment, on the ground that the grievance petition was not maintainable as he was not a `workman' for the purposes of the Standing Orders, being employed as a Chowkidar. 2. The sole issue which falls to be considered for the purposes of this appeal is whether the appellant, who admittedly was employed as a Chowkidar and who had been dismissed from service on the charge of committing theft, after holding a domestic enquiry in which it is alleged by the respondent Company that the charge of theft was fully established, is required to be a workman to the purposes of Standing…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register