Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1104 1989 SLD 1104 1989 PLC 93
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-62 of 1986, decided on 14th February, 1988.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
S. Safdar Hussain for Appellant. Yousuf Khan for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD SHARIF

VS

FAZAL WAHAB

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss. 25-A, 36 & 38 (3)--Grievance petition--Adjudication of--Petitioner claiming termination as wrongful--Employer stating that employment was temporary for particular job with specific condition that services were liable to termination on completion of job and that petitioner after termination had received his dues in full and final settlement--Petitioner disowning his thumb-impression on appointment and termination letters and on payment vouchers--Employer making application for verification of thumb-impression of petitioner from Handwriting Expert--Labour Court without accepting application allowing grievance petition-­Action of Labour Court not approved by Appellate Tribunal--Held: Labour Court, in circumstances, was bound to grant application of employer before passing final order on grievance petition--Order of Labour Court set aside in appeal. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ---S. 36 --Evidence--Affidavit not sworn before competent authority cannot be taken into consideration as lawfully sworn affidavit-in-evidence--Affidavit signed in office of Advocate--Labour Court was not correct in taking judicial notice of such an affidavit and could not allow same as lawful evidence. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- ---S. 25-A--Grievance petition submitted by representative and not in person by aggrieved person is not maintainable. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30-1-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be a permanent employee of the appellant and that on 13-10-1984 without assigning any reason or service of a proper charge-sheet, he was mala fide and illegally dismissed from service and being aggrieved he filed his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court. 3. The appellant resisted the petition on the ground that the services of…
🔒
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