| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1245 1990 SLD 1245 1990 PLC 51 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. HYD-177 of 1988, decided on 9th August, 1989.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Karamat Ali Junior of Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellants. S.P. Lodhi for
Respondent.
Appeal No. HYD-177 of 1988, decided on 9th August, 1989.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Karamat Ali Junior of Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellants. S.P. Lodhi for
Respondent.
Messrs DADU SUGAR MILLS, PIARO GOTH DISTRICT DADU through its General Manager
VS
MUMTAZ ALI Messrs DADU SUGAR MILLS, PIARO GOTH DISTRICT DADU through its General Manager vs MUMTAZ ALI
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.25-A--Grievance notice--Limitation--New crushing season of Sugar Mills for which seasonal workmen sought to be re-employed, was to start on 1-10-1987-Cause of action for non-employment having accrued to workman on that date, grievance notice sent by him on 28-12-1987 and received by Mills on very next day, being within three months from cause of action, could not be said to be timebarred. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.14--Grievance petition--Workman, whether seasonal or temporary--Documents of appointment of workman on record showed him to be a seasonal worker--Oral words of witnesses produced on behalf of Mills that workman was temporary worker, held, would have little evidentiary, value in presence of documentary evidence--Labour Court thus rightly held petitioner/worker as seasonal worker. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.14--Re-employment of seasonal worker--Unconditional right having been given to seasonal worker to be re-employed in next work season; employer would have no discretion to refuse his reemployment on ground that work of workman during last working season was not satisfactory when employer failed to prove by whatever evidence that his work was not satisfactory. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the learned Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, dated 3-5-1988, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed ordering his reinstatement with consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was admittedly a workman employed by the appellant in the crushing season of sugarcane. For the last time he was employed in the crushing season 1986-87 and was discharged on 23-4-1987 after closer of the season. The appellant advertised the start of the new crushing season on 1-10-1987. The respondent allegedly approach6d the appellant on 28-9-1987 but was given no definite reply with…
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