Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1233 1989 SLD 1233 1989 PLC 295
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. HYD-79 to 90 of 1988, decided on 7th December, 1988.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ali Amjad for Appellant. Mehmood Abdul Ghani for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD IOBAL and 11 others

VS

ZEAL PAK FACTORY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ---S. 25-A--Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 1--Apprenticeship Rules, 1986, Rr. 18 & 19--Apprenticeship-­Empiovee working for six months after expiry of the original contract--Effect-­Appellants entered into contract for 3 years--Services were terminated six months after expiry of the original contract--Order impugned--Contention of respondents was that appellants not being permanent their services were validly terminated after expiry of period of apprenticeship--Record showing that approval of extension of apprenticeship was obtained from competent authority much after also expiry service of contract grievance petitions--Held, i there was no valid appellants of period of apprenticeship and as such the period of six months for which appellants had worked after the expiry of the period of apprenticeship would confer upon them the right of permanent workmen in view of the classification of workmen under Standing Order 1--Appeals were allowed in circumstances and appellants directed to be reinstated with back benefits. DECISION I propose to dispose of these twelve appeals by this single decision as they all have been preferred against the order dated 3-2-1988 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI at Hyderdbad, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the twelve grievance petitions filed by the twelve appellants by a single order. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants entered into contract of apprenticeship with respondents. Original contract was for three years duration on the terms and conditions mentioned in the written contract which was executed by each appellant separately with the respondents. The services of the appellants were, terminated on 14-5-1987 after six months of the expiry of the original contract of the apprenticeship. The appellants claimed that after rig termination of period of apprenticeship they worked for six months as workmen against permanent job and as such they would be deemed to be* permanent workmen and their services could not be terminated on the ground that their period of apprenticeship had…
🔒
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