| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 1820 1989 SLD 1820 1989 PLC 624 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. QSA-511 of 1988, decided on 2nd November, 1988.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Javed Altaf for Appellant.
Appeal No. QSA-511 of 1988, decided on 2nd November, 1988.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Javed Altaf for Appellant.
Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS Ltd.
VS
Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-ยญ---S. 2(xxviii)--"Workman"--"Supervisor"--Hanks checker, checking articles using hands, deemed to be performing manual work--Applications of workers for leave or confirmation simply forwarded to competent authorities without making any recommendation--Held, a workman and not a supervisor. (b) Industrial dispute-- --- Domestic enquiry--Evidence--Documentary evidence available but not produced--Oral evidence, in circumstances, held, had no value. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision data 13-9-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service, with back benefits. 2. The facts are that the respondent, who is a hanks checker, was remove from service on the allegation of being guilty of habitual late coming. The absences were not for full days but the respondent is alleged to have left dui before the closing of the working hours. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the, respondent being hanks checker was not covered by the definition of workman The argument has no force. While checking articles one has to use his hands and thus does manual work. It has been further argued that the respondent had supervisory powers and since his wages were in excess of Rs.8W per month, he was ousted from the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. To prove this fact two leave applications Exh.PF have been produced. They bear the signatures of not only the respondent but of the head of the department also. It does not appear whether the respondent simply forwarded the applications or recommanded them, because over his signatures there is no such indication. His designation is given as shift incharge. It is thus clear that the leave applications were allowed by the head of e department and not by the respondent. He may have simply forwarded the applications for proper orders. Since there is no note ofโฆ
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