| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 525 1994 SLD 525 1994 PLC 90 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. KAR-144 to KAR-151 of 1992, decision dated: 29-09-1993.
AGHA ALI HYDER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.L. Shahani for Appellants. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for
Respondents.
Appeals Nos. KAR-144 to KAR-151 of 1992, decision dated: 29-09-1993.
AGHA ALI HYDER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.L. Shahani for Appellants. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for
Respondents.
Messrs HINOPAK MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI and others
VS
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others
Law:
Section:
Industrial dispute Relationship of employer and employeeProof of existenceGrievance petition filed by employees against termination of their services, was resisted by employers contending that petitioners were not their employees, but were employees of their contractorEvidence on record had fully proved that lunch and tea were being served to employees on behalf of employers and jobs were to be assigned to employees by employers and not by their contractorRelationship of employer and employee having been established between parties, employees were rightly ordered to be reinstated by Court. Taj Din and 44 others v. Punjab Labour. Court No. III, Lyallpur and another, 1976 PLC 758 ref. DECISION These appeals from the composite order of the Labour Court No. 3, Karachi reinstating the petitioners, but without back benefits arise in the following circumstances: 2. It was alleged by the petitioners that they were in the employment of the respondents, though in different categories from 1986 onward. On or about the 26th of May, 1989 they bad decided to form a trade union and on the 28th of May, 1989 an application had been made to the Registrar of Trade Unions for its registration. Apprised of this resolve of the petitioners, their services were unceremoniously terminated by the respondents, on the 30th of May. Aggrieved by these wrongful orders they had sent grievance notices to the respondent and as their words remained unheeded they had been constrained to file the petitions. 4. In the Written Reply filed on behalf of the respondent it was alleged that the petitioners were the employees of M/s. Alkhair Services, a Contractor of theirs and under the circumstances the relationship between the parties as employer and employees did not subsist. The petitions were therefore liable to be dismissed on that score. 5. The petitioners were their own witnesses. Out of them Muhammad Sharif was crossexamined on behalf of all of them. Syed Saeed Hamid Proprietor of Alkhair Services, Fasihul Karim Siddiqui the General Manager (Personnel) of the respondent, and Ghulam Qadir appeared on behalf of the respondent. 6. The Labour Court for the reasons given by. it allowed the…
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