| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 2389 1985 SLD 2389 1985 PLC 217 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. MN-236 of 1984, decided on 13th August, 1984.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. MN-236 of 1984, decided on 13th August, 1984.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE and another
VS
RASHID AKHTAR SHEIKH
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.2(i) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.2(xxviii)---Workman"--Overseer employed in Road Transport Board-Maintaining material stock, preparing bills of contractors and conveying progress report--All duties of clerical nature--A workman as defined in S.2(i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968--Supervision of work of contractors and not of employees--Would not oust such overseer from definition of workman under S.2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A--Words "is employed" in S.2(xxviii) do not mean only those persons who are in service at time of making petition under S.25-A--Person in service/ employment at time of occurrence of cause of action--Covered--Workman retired seeking redress by grievance petition against retirement--Does not cease to be a workman. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Appellant. Respondent with his Representative. Date of hearing: 25th July_ 1984_ JUDGMENT The decision, dated 31-3-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to Lie, re-instated in service with back benefits. 2. The respondent was retired on completing the age of 55 years. The dispute between the parties is about the age of superannuation. According to the appellant, the age of retirement is. 55 years, whereas the respondent claims that he is entitled to serve till the age of 60 years. The status of the respondent as a workman has also been questioned by the appellant. 3. The respondent is an Overseer. His duties are given in Exh. R.6. The duties enumerated in items Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 are clerical in nature. He maintained material stock and issue register, prepared bills of the contractors and conveyed progress reports. These duties are clerical. The measurement of work done by the contractors is manual skilled work. So, the respondent is a workman as defined in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.…
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