Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2116 1989 SLD 2116 1989 PLC 319
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-152 of 1987, heard on 11th 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 ARMY WELFARE SUGAR MILLS

VS

JAVED ABBASI and others

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing; Orders) Ordinance (VI of 19613)-. ---Ss. 1(b) & 12(3)--Employment purportedly on daily wages basis--Wages paid on monthly basis--Employment in department of Mills not of temporary nature-­Workman on completion of 3 months' service, held, acquired status of permanent workman and oral termination would be illegal--Subsequent rectification of such illegal order by issuance of written order would be of no avail unless written order was made after reinstatement. Races M. Mushtaq for Appellant. Bashir Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1988. DECISION This is an appeal against an order, dated 16-4-1987, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad has allowed the 3 grievance petitions of the respondents filed under section 3-A, I.R.O. 1969. 2. The admitted facts of the case arc that the respondents were employed as Field Helpers by the appellants in November, 1985, and, thereafter their services were terminated on 8-5-1980. After serving grievance notices upon the appellants, the respondents filed 3 grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court, which were consolidated and disposed of by a single order. The appellants resisted the petitions on the ground that the respondents were temporary workers on daily wages, specifically employed on temporary project which had been discontinued, therefore, they have not acquired the right of permanent workmen. 3. I have heard Mr. Races M. Mushtaq, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, Advocate for the respondents. 4. The facts of the cases are not disputed. The only question that requires consideration is whether the respondents were temporary workmen or had acquired the right of permanent workmen. The appellants have mainly relied upon Exh. R-2 which according to them was appointment order. The letter, however, shows that it is a letter assigning the duties and not the appointment letter. It does not show that the respondents were appointed on temporary project or their appointments were temporary. The mere fact that they were assigned duties to work in the "Supervised Cultivation Scheme" would not…
🔒
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