Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2176 1986 SLD 2176 1986 PLC 635
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-335 of 1985, decided on 27th January, 1986.
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

BALUCH KHAN

VS

CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, SARGODHA

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S. 2 (i)--Workman--Line Jobber in Textile Mills looking after work of workers on looms and responsible for production--Removal of any defect in machine occasionally when Fitters felt difficulty, held, would not bring such Line Jobber within definition of "workman". Abdul Majid for Appellant. Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision, dated 30-4-1985 passed by learned Court No.5, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed. 2. The allegation made against the appellant was that when Mr. Muhammad Saleem Assistant Weaving Master told the appellant that the thread of Bobbins had been wrongly installed and were broken, he lost his temper and attacked and beat him and abused him. Mr. Muhammad Saleem and three other witnesses supported the charge whereas the appellant and his defence witnesses admitting the incident put it forward in a different manner stating that Mr. Muhammad Saleem had called the appellant "Begairat". They had stated that the appellant had neither abused nor beaten Mr. Muhammad Saleem. Both the parties have suppressed the real story of the incident. It appears that Mr. Muhammad Saleem used provoking words in favour of the appellant, which infuriated him as a result of which he had attacked him and beaten him. Since Muhammad Saleem had acted in objectionable manner which does not be fit a boss he could have expected the same in retaliation what the appellant did. So Mr. Muhammad Saleem was responsible for the whole trouble. 3. However, the finding of the learned lower Court on the point of workman appears to be correct. The evidence on the record does not show that the appellant had to be manual work. He had supervisory powers as is apparent from his own statement. Since his monthly emolument are not given, therefore, in spite of the fact that his duties were supervisory, he is not ousted from the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance but…
🔒
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