Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2241 1986 SLD 2241 1986 PLC 714
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1366 of 1980, decided on 23rd January, 1986
SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND AHMAD ALI U. QURESHI, JJ

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

Messrs KARACHI TEXTILE DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS

VS

ABDUL MAJEED and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.O. 13--Person operating a machine, held, would be machine operator--Contention that such person was a category unto himself as such termination of his services not attracting S.O. 13 of Ordinance (VI of 1968) was without substance--Such person could not be regarded as "category unto himself." (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- --Art.199--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Concurrent findings of fact--High Court vested with limited jurisdiction in constitution petition held, would not set aside concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Tribunals of competent jurisdiction based on record. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.25-A--Grievnace petition/notice--Fact not mentioned in--Effect--Plea taken by employee that his termination was against law, held would be of general nature which could be elaborated by evidence--Factual elaboration by evidence of general plea, taken by terminated employee, would not entitle employer /establishment to lay claim to have been taken by surprise. A I R 1960 S C 137; P L D 1974 S C 138 and P L D 1975 Kar. 437 ref. Abdul Hafiz Qadri for Petitioner. Muhammad Shibli for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 22nd and 23rd January, 1986. JUDGMENT AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, J.--Petitioner has filed this petition praying for declaration, that the order, dated 26-8-1980, passed by respondent No. 2 and order, dated 18-9-1980, passed by respondent No. 3, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect, further, that the application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, be dismissed, and that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 may be restrained from giving effect to their said orders. 2. The admitted facts leading to this petition are, that the respondent No.l was employee of the petitioner and was working as Operator Finishing Machine (Soaper) when his services were terminated by the petitioner by a letter, dated 6th May, 1979, on the ground, that due to considerable shortage in the work the management had decided as a policy matter to shut down the finishing machine (Soaper) in "A" shift for all times and, therefore,…
🔒
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