Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 1020 1979 SLD 1020 1979 PLC 325
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-15 of 1978, decided on 14th November 1978.
GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN

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

MUHAMMAD SHARIF

VS

CHAND TARA SILK FACTORY

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (ICXIII of 1969)------ -- S. 25-A-Appellant claiming to be a permanent worker as Warper in employment of respondent and to have been removed from service without any reason-Respondent denying such claim-Appellant refusing to answer whether any Warping machine installed in respon­dent's factory-Refusal to answer such pertinent question enough .to repel appellant's contention-Identity card and some slips produced by appellant in support of his claim disputed by respondent but not proved by producing signatories to such documents contention that one of four factories owned by respondent contained a warping machine and ownership of all such factories proved by employment of a common chaukidar-Held, not correct-Various owners could join together to employ one chaukidar and not necessary for each employer to engage a separate chaukidar. Ali Ahmad for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. If, Karachi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 2. The short point involved in this case is whether the appellant was in the employment of the respondent. It was claimed by the appellant that he was a permanent worker in the employment of the respondent and was serving as Warper since 4 months and suddenly his services were terminated on 11-6-1977 without any rhyme or reason. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. The application was resisted and it was denied that the appellant was either in the employment of the respondent or there was any Warper Machine and, therefore, the question of employment of the appellant as Warper did not arise. The learned Labour Court after recording the evidence found against the appellant and dismissed the application. 3. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of the respondent. I see no reason to interfere with the Orders passed by the Labour Court. Elaborate…
🔒
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