Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 611 1997 SLD 611 1997 PLC 123
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. KAR-63 and KAR-70 of 1993 decided on 5th March 1996.
MUSHTAQ 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

SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. Through GENERAL Manager

VS

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and another

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)Ss. 25A & 51West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12Termination of serviceBack benefitsEntitlement toServices of employee were terminated orally without order in writing stating explicit reasons for his terminationOrder terminating services of employee being defective, employee was ordered to be reinstatedEmployee who had neither stated that he remained unemployed during period of his termination nor had specifically prayed for payment of back benefits, was not entitled to same. 1991 SCMR 2087 ref. S. Imran Bukhari for Appellant. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent No. 1. Muhammad. Humayun for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1996. DECISION These are crossappeals arising from order of the Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi partly allowing the grievance petition of one Muhammad Ishaq but rejecting the prayer for back benefits. 2. The facts are that appellant Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company had employed Muhammad Ishaq as a Fitter in their factory at B72 S.I.T.E., Karachi. No written order of appointment was issued to Muhammad Ishaq and he was treated as a daily wage worker. The factory machinery and establishment belonged to Siemens Pakistan but in the year 1988 respondent No.2 Steff Cone was said to have been introduced as a contractor for the work of fabrication. This contractor is said to have removed respondent Muhammad Ishaq on 1121988 orally and there was no order in writing given to him nor were any explicit reasons mentioned. Appellant Siemens contended that Muhammad Ishaq was no longer their employee but he was assigned to M/s. Steff Cone and was dismissed by them. That they were given the sole contract of fabrication and they were making payment to Muhammad Ishaq after 1988. An Agreement dated 1st of July, 1987 between Siemens and the Steff Cone has been produced showing that the work of welding, fitting. painting, repairing and maintenance was all given to contractors Steff Cone who would employ their own labour and would be responsible for their wages etc. That the contractors were bound to give all facilities to the…
🔒
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