Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 1408 1983 SLD 1408 1983 PLC 262
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-829 of 1980, decided on 30th November, 1982.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

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

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

VS

UMAR BAKHSH

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S. Os. 1 & 12 (5)-Job of permanent nature--Workman putting in service for more than 3 months-Service terminated purportedly on expiry of period for which employed-Termination order indicating no other reason-Persons junior to petitioner retained-Termi­nation order, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court with full back benefits-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38. Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing :1st November, 1982. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 9-11-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated with back benefits. 2. The facts are that the respondent was employed on contract basis for two years vide order Exh. D-1 in April, 1980. His services were terminated vide order Exh. P-2 on 13th of May, 1979. According to the terms and conditions of service either party could terminate the services on one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice pay. By terminating the services of the respondent, this condition was not fulfilled by the appellant. The respondent challenged the order of termina­tion before the learned lower Court on the ground that he being a permanent employee, without giving any reasons he could not be termi­nated. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since only for two years the respondent was employed he was not permanent. It was also contended by the appellant before the learned lower Court that the respondent was not covered by the definition of workman. So far as the point whether the respondent is a workman or not is concerned, it was found by the learned lower…
🔒
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