| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2114 1989 SLD 2114 1989 PLC 303 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-99 of 1988, decided on 18th December, 1988.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-99 of 1988, decided on 18th December, 1988.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Messrs ROSE SILK FACTORY
VS
WASIULLAH
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Workman--Termination of service--Labour Court accepted the claim of respondent and reinstated him--Order impugned--Oral evidence produced by respondent was contradictory and conflicting--Held, respondent did not produce tangible evidence and failed to discharge onus of proving that he was employee of appellant--Not necessary to go into question whether Industrial Relations Ordinance applied in the case--Appeal was- allowed and impugned order set aside in circumstances. Muhammad Khursheed Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellant. Ali Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1988. DECISION This is an appeal against the order dated 16-2^1988, passed by the Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi whereby he allowed the grievance application filed by the respondent. 2. The respondent claimed to be worker employed by the appellant for long period. He further claimed that his services were orally terminated by the appellant on 14-7-1986 as he had repeatedly demanded his several rights under the Labour Laws which annoyed the appellant. The respondent after serving the grievance notice filed grievance application before the Labour Court. 3. The appellant resisted the grievance petition on the ground that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and further that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to the establishment of the appellant as it did not employed twenty or more workmen. 4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Khursheed Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ali Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent. 5. Admittedly the respondent did not have any documentary evidence to show that he was employed by the appellant. He relied upon his oral evidence and that of one Ali Akbar. It is not alleged either in the grievance application or in the grievance notice or in the affidavit-in-evidence of the respondent or his witness that the appellant did not issue him appointment letter or that they do not issue any appointment letter to the workers. Even this question has not been suggested in cross-examination of Muhammad Hussain,…
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