| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 104 1983 SLD 104 1983 PLC 810 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal
Labour Appeal No. .20 of 1982, decided on 21st May, 1983.
ZAKAULLAH LODHI, ACTG. C.J., APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
W. N. Kohli for Appellant. Tariq Mehmood for
Respondents.
Labour Appeal No. .20 of 1982, decided on 21st May, 1983.
ZAKAULLAH LODHI, ACTG. C.J., APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
W. N. Kohli for Appellant. Tariq Mehmood for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ SAEED HASHMI
VS
HABIB BANK LTD. AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 2(xxviii)
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S.2 (xxviii)-"Workman"-Whether or not an employee a workman-Determining factors-- -Powers of hire and fire-Not sole criterion-Word "wages" used in S. 2 (xxviii)-Does not mean basic salary only but entire emoluments including allowances would be relevant-Nature of job to which a person is appointed-Pivotal to determine status of Grade-III Bank Officer -Basic salary Rs. 625 but total emolument including allowances Rs. 1,646 p.m:-Basically appointed as Officer though having no powers of hire and fire and performing some clerical work-Not a workman. United Bank Limited, Karachi etc. v. Muhammad Ali 1982 P L C 1050 distinguished. Hafeez-ur-Rehman v. Vice-President, U.B.L., Sukkur 1982 P L C 294 and Kifayat Hussain v. U.B.L. 1982 P L C 116 rel. JUDGMENT The appellant was appointed in Habib Bank Limited. Quetta, the first respondent herein, as Grade-III officer on 10th October,`1979 and was posted as an officer at Panjgoor. He absented himself from duty whereupon, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 21st September, 1981. He filed a reply to the same explaining that he had been ill during the period of his absence from duty. He also produced Medical Certificate which indicated that he had nervous tension and required some rest. However the explanation was not found satisfactory and his services were terminated on 25th October, 1981. He filed an appeal and also a review petition to the respondent but the same were also dismissed. Thereafter, he issued notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the I. R. O.) calling upon the respondent to re-instate him in service and there being no response by the respondent, he filed an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. which was contested by the respondent. Among others the respondent raised following objections to the maintainability of the application in the Labour Court ; (a) that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to the employees of the Bank as they were governed by the Wage Commission Award ; (b) that the appellant was not a `Workman' as his initial appointment was that of an Officer, the nature…
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