| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 1382 1995 SLD 1382 1995 PLC 626 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-391 of 1994, decided on 5th April, 1995.
MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. KAR-391 of 1994, decided on 5th April, 1995.
MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ZALIMAN SHAH
VS
ATLAS RUBBER AND PLASTIC INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.. KARACHI
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance mm of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A---Industrial dispute---"Workman"---Grievance petition filed by employee against order of his termination was dismissed by Labour Court holding that employee being a "Head Watchman" was not a workman as his duties were of supervisory nature---Employee who was initially appointed as Chowkidar, later on was designated as Head Chowkidar---Mere designation of employee as Head Chowkidar, could not be said to have been transferred from the post of worker to that of employer or an officer, especially when he continued to work in the shifts as Chowkidar, opening and closing the gate and checking gate passes---Employee, thus would be a "workman" and not an officer and his grievance petition was maintainable. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI or 1968)--- -----S.O. 12(3)---Termination of service---Services of employee were terminated by employers for the reason that same were no longer required-- Order terminating services was challenged by employee on two grounds, firstly that services being no longer required, was not a reason contemplated under S.O. 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and secondly that order of termination was mala fide---So far as first ground was concerned, requirement of law was that reasons for termination should be stated, but it was nowhere stated that reasons should be proper or justified---Termination of employee was termination simpliciter and it could be-that termination was for reasons of reorganization or to affect economy---Termination of employee for real on that his services were no longer required, thus was not unjustified especially when employee was offered notice pay and other legal dues---So far as second ground of challenge was concerned, burden of proof regarding mala fides was on employee, but employee had not sufficiently discharged that burden-- Employee though was a workman and his grievance petition was maintainable. but he having failed to show that termination of his services was illegal or mala fide, no interference was called for.…
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