Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1218 1984 SLD 1218 1984 PLC 515
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-502 of 1983, decided on 28th January, 1984.
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

Pirzada SAIDULAMIN & BROTHERS, CONTRACTORS DAWOOD HERCULES

VS

MUHAMMAD HANIF AND 3 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute- --Service of termination order-Under postal certificate-Carries no presumption of proof. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- --S. 25-A-Grievance notice-Service of-Through registered post-Delivery to addressee presumed-Non-production of acknowledge­ment due receipt immaterial. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- -- Ss. 2 (xxiv) & 25-A-Settlement-Enforceable by grievance petition-Contractor entering into a new contract with Mills on expiry of contract of previous contractor-Agreement between new con­tractor and Officer of Labour Department for employing workers of previous contractor-Cannot be treated as a Settlement-Settlement always between employer and collective bargaining agent or work­men-Grievance petition, held, cannot be brought on basis of such agreement. Malik Bashir Ahmad for Appellant. M. A. Hamid Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing :24th January, 1984. JUDGMENT The eight appeals captioned above involve common questions of fact and law, therefore, are being disposed of together through this single judg­ment, wherein Pirzada Said-ul-Amin & Brothers, Contractor Dawood Hercules will be described as the appellant and Muhammad Hanif, Ali Muhammad, Sooba Masih and Allah Ditta as the respondents. 2. Previously, Ayub & Company were the Contractors of Dawood Hercules for loading and unloading. Their term of contract expired on 31st May, 1980 and on 1st June, 1980 the appellant took the contract. The respondents were the employees of the previous contractor and after the appellant took contract they were on their applications re-employed by them through the good wishes of the Assistant Director, Labour, who took writing P. C.-10 from the appellant for the benefit of the respondents. The appellant terminated the services of the respondents on 21st June, 1980 on the ground that their work was not satisfactory. They challenged the orders of their termination in their grievance petitions, which have been accepted by .the learned lower Court. The appellant has challenged the direction of their re-instatement in service in its appeals, whereas the respondents have in their appeals claimed back…
🔒
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