Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2125 1989 SLD 2125 1989 PLC 332
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-152 of 1985, decided on 27th April, 1988.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, 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

LIAQUAT ALI

VS

GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD.

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII or 1969)-- ---Ss. 2(xxiii) & 25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)--"Workman"--Jamadar working as head of Watch and Ward department of establishment-Recommending applications of Chowkidars and posting them on different places of mills as Security Incharge--Duties of supervisory nature--Such person, held, was not a workman and not entitled to maintain grievance petition. 1971PLC1and1981PLC871rel. (b) Industrial dispute-- ---Misconduct--Removal from service for misconduct--Allegations confessed with apology--Claim of wrongful removal--Not sustainable. 1987 S C M R 1823 rel. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. Masood Ahmad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th March, 1988. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30-3-1985, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. 1 at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman and was designated as Jamadar in view of his seniority amongst other chowkidars of the respondent mills. He claimed to have been performing unskilled manual work alongwith other chowkidars such as searching the persons entering and going out the mill area. The claim of the appellant was that on 7-6-1983 and 26-6-1983 he was charge-sheeted for purported allegations, which could not be within the definition of a misconduct making him liable to be dismissed from service. Further, the claim of the appellant was that an unfair and partial domestic enquiry conducted against him resulting in his dismissal from service on 9-7-1983. He being aggrieved, had served his grievance notice followed by his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. 3. The respondent mills had resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant was never employed to do manual or clerical work and as such he was not a `workman' within the meaning of section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance to maintain his present petition and on merits, it was claimed by the respondent…
🔒
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