Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2051 1989 SLD 2051 1989 PLC 1009
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-237 of 1988, decided on 28th November, 1988.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant. Muhammad Tasneem for
Respondent.

QAMARUDDIN

VS

Messrs RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S. 2(i) and S.Os. 1 & 12(3)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Classification of workmen--Daily wages workman, not covered by prescribed classifications--Workman initially appointed on daily wages for a fixed number of days only but continuing to work for nearly 3 years--No case that job was of a temporary nature--Job was also not likely to be finished in 9 months--Held: The only classification in which such workman could be fitted was that of a "permanent" workman in spite of the fact that he had been paid daily wages--Termination of such workman orally and without assigning any reason, therefore, was illegal--Right of reinstatement of such workman was enforceable under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S. 1(4)--Applicability of Ordinance--Employees Corporation run by and under authority of Federal Government within ambit of Ordinance. Punjab Industries Corporation v. P.L.A.T. and others 1988 S C M R 1725 rel. DECISION This appeal is directed against the order, dated 28-5-1988, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. IV, at Karachi, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition, of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed by the respondents on 12-7-1984, as a Weighing Labour on daily wages for 85 days. However, the case of the appellant is that he worked as Machinist/Turner continuously till 10-7-1987 when he was removed from employment without any written order. After adopting the grievance procedure he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was dismissed, vide impugned order. The respondents resisted the grievance petition contending that the appellant was employed on daily wages, vide order dated 12-7-1984, and in terms of the said order, his services were terminated after 85 days. The respondents denied that the appellant had worked as Machinist/Turner continuously till 10-7-1987. 3. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi,…
🔒
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