Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 616 1994 SLD 616 1994 PLC 260
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. KAR-619 and KAR-626 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd November, 1993.
AGHA ALI HYDER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh for the Worker. Muhammad Humayun for the Management.

Messrs AEG PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. and another

VS

Syed ZAHEERULHASSAN and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute Removal from serviceReinstatementEmployee who was removed from service considering him as temporary worker, had worked with employers at least four times and all those periods of service were more than six months eachEmployers had nowhere stated that employee was engaged as a temporary hand because of any special exigencies on all those occasions­Employers were involved in manufacture of electrical goods and on their own showing they had got two hundred workers with themWork done by employee, in circumstances, was of permanent nature and employers could not claim that employee was a temporary hand whose services were availed of only occasionallyEmployee was rightly reinstated by Court below holding that employee was a permanent workman and he could not be removed as temporary workman. Climax Engineering Company Limited v. Shabbir Ahmed 1985 P L C 400 ref. (b) Industrial dispute Back benefitsEntitlement toEmployee who was removed from service was reinstated by the Labour Court, but back benefits were not allowed to him on ground that employee had not alleged in his grievance petition that he was unemployed during period of his removal from serviceEmployee had stated the fact of his unemployment in his affidavitinevidenceEmployee, in circumstances, was entitled to back benefits. Muhammad Bashir and others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1991 S C M R 2087 ref. Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh for the Worker. Muhammad Humayun for the Management. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1993. DECISION These two appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court No.III, Karachi reinstating the petitioner but without awarding back benefits. The respondent had challenged the order of reinstatement, while the petitioner is dissatisfied with the denial of back benefits. The facts forming the background of these appeals are as follows: It was alleged by the petitioner that he was employed on 121988 as an electrician/fitter in the respondent Company which is manufacturing electrical goods, such as electrical panels, switches, plugs etc. Though the job was of a permanent nature the appointment given to him was on temporary basis, and his services were…
🔒
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