| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1988 SLG 1239 1988 SLD 1239 1988 PLC 654 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-5 of 1986, decided on 19th May, 1986.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. FD-5 of 1986, decided on 19th May, 1986.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 7 others
VS
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)-- --Ss.25-A & 38(3)-Intermittent worker--Continuous worker--Railway employees--Criterion to determine whether a particular class of worker is intermittent or continuous, held, not only hours of duty and period of inaction but also whether or not employees required to give sustained attention is to be taken into consideration--Employees performing technical duties for rectification of defects of signal electric point telephones, signal batteries and electric relays etc. whenever they was a defect- -Workers would have to sit idle while waiting for any defect which they could remove--No suggestion that such employees had to give sustained attention or could not leave place of duty during period of inaction--Labour Court, in circumstances, held, was justified in rejecting grievance petitions of such employees seeking declaration to be continuous workers. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi,Representation for Appellants. Irfan Qadir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th May, 1986. JUDGMENT In the appeal captioned above the decision dated 27-11-1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for declaration that they are continuous workers and entitled to overtime in the capacity of such workers, was dismissed. 2. It has been argued by the learned representative of the appellants that in the duty roster Exh.P.l the word 'intermittant' is wrongly given but according to the nature of duties, the appellants fall in the definition of continuous workers. He has also argued that for intermittant workers, the duty hours is twelve with two intervals, but according to the duty roster, the appellants' duty hours is 10 only. The learned lower Court has in this respect said that by way of concession only ten hours duty was being taken from the appellants. The criterion to see whether a particular class of workers is intermittent or continuous, the thing to be seen is not only this as to what is the hour of duty and what is the period of inaction', but it is also to be seen whether they are to give sustained attention or not If there areβ¦
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