Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 2273 1985 SLD 2273 1985 PLC 989
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-28S of 1984, heard on 13th May, 1985.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, 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

Soofi MUHAMMAD ASLAM

VS

MESSRS M. IFTIKHAR & COMPANY LTD, , KARACHI

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- -- S. O. 12 & 13-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3) - Retrenchment - Management free to re­orgainse its business-Retrenchment of surplus staff on account of re-organisation-Not exceptionable provided it is of junior most and does not involve victimisation-Neither any victimisation nor malice encountered in evidence-Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition against termination due to retrenchment, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Bayer Pharma Ltd. v. Mirza Hussain Akhtar 1981 P L C 24 ; 1981 PLC 615 ; 1982 PLC 191 ; 1969 PLC 459 and 1983 PLC 1286 rel. S. Safdar Hussain for Appellant. Itrat Puri for Respondents. Date of hearing : 13th Miy, 1983. DECISION This-is an appeal of the appellant, Soofi Muhammad Aslam, against the impugned order passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969. 2. The facts are that Soofi Muhammad Aslam was a permanent workman of the respondents as the respondents appointed him as a Cashier on monthly salary of Rs. 1,560. He was appointed on 5th April, 1981. On 12th October, 1982 he was removed from the appointment without any letter of termination. The respondents have filed the written statement and contended that the appellant was performing the duties of supervisory nature and as such he is not coming within the definition of workman. The contention primarily of the respondents was that the services of the appellant were terminated due to the re-organization of the Accounts Branch of the Department of the respondents and the services of one Cashier became surplus. The appellant was junior most, therefore, was retrenched from service by letter of termination, dated 12th October, 1982 and also the appellant acknowledged the letter so received. 3. The matter was argued by the learned counsel and I have perused the evidence, recorded by the lower Court. The victimization is not proved inasmuch as the appellant in his grievance notice has stated as under: - "As you know that my services have been terminated on…
🔒
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