Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 265 1996 SLD 265 1996 PLC 39
Sindh High Court
Writ Petition No. 353 of 1988, decision dated: 28-05-1995, hearing DATE : 28-05-1992
MAMOON KAZI AND AHMAD YAR KHAN, JJ

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

M/s. TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL LTD.

VS

CHAIRMAN, SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others M/s. TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs CHAIRMAN, SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 51---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Payment of gratuity--­Entitlement---Scope of S. 51 of Ordinance---Application filed by employee under S. 51 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming gratuity from employer was allowed by Labour Court and confirmed by Appellate Tribunal---Employer seeking relief from High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction---High Court quashed the orders of both the Labour Courts holding that workman would be entitled to recover from employer under S. 51 of the Ordinance only that money which was due to him under settlement or award or in consequence of a decision of an arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal---Section 51, only enabled Labour Court to determine amount of money due if same was capable of being computed in terms of money but nowhere empowered Labour Court to adjudicate upon any claims between an employer and a workman or determine questions raising issues of fundamental nature---Labour Court, thus, was not vested with jurisdiction to determine claims instituted by employee in respect of gratuity---Application filed by employee was not maintainable in circumstances. C.P. No. B-552/81 Karachi Club v. Muhammad Farooq decided on 6-8-1985 and Ghulam Mustafa v. Vth Sindh Labour Court and another 1987 PLC 601 ref. JUDGMENT MAMOON KAZI, J.---Respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the learned IVth Sindh Labour Court. Karachi claiming gratuity from the petitioner under the settlement which had been executed by the petitioner with the Collective Bargaining Agent. The application was resisted by the petitioner, firstly, on the ground that it was legally not maintainable and, secondly, that the respondent No.3 was not a workman. An objection was also raised that the respondent No.3 was not entitled to the payment of gratuity since there was a provident fund scheme prevailing in the petitioner Management. The Labour Court, however, brushed aside the said objection and granted the respondent's application and held that he was entitled to the claim of gratuity against the petitioner. The petitioner…
🔒
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