Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 291 1996 SLD 291 1996 PLC 95
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-1654 of 1995, heard on 12-09-1995
WAJIHUDDIN AHMED AND AGHA SAIFUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Arif Khan. Nemo

TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI

VS

HASHIM and 2 others TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Vs HASHIM and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 25-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---"Workman"---Concurrent findings of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal that employee was workman entitled to relief and that his case fell' within purview of-5.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969--­Petitioner (employer) challenging such finding in Constitutional petition--­Petitioners' contention that its objection that employee was not workman did not find mention in the decision of Tribunal was repelled, inference being that point was not raised in that forum---Such point if argued and for some reason not dealt with in impugned decision, there was nothing to preclude petitioner from seeking clarification from the Tribunal---Implication was that such question was never raised at the hearing even though it might have figured in memorandum of appeal---Matter in question, being .purely of fact, no interference was warranted in absence of failure -to show miscarriage of justice. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 25-A---"Workman"---Question of age---Workman merely,, relying upon National Identity Card in proof of his age---Labour forums allowed petitioner to have workman medically examined in order to determine his approximate date of birth on basis of which he could be retired from service---Impugned order, thus, appeared to be just, fair and lawful---No interference was called for in such decision. JUDGMENT WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J: --1. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions. 2. The facts of the case need not be enumerated as such are appropriately detailed in the two impugned orders. As to the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal, it is contended that the respondent No.1 was not worker at all and, therefore, his case did not fall within the preview of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The contention was rejected by the Labour Court and has found no mention whatever in the decision of the Tribunal, the inference being that the point was not argued there. If…
🔒
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