| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 1859 1991 SLD 1859 1991 PLC 140 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-372 of 1989, decided on 23rd April, 1990.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M. Rafiq Malik for Appellant. Latifur Rahman Khan Survery for
Respondent No. 1.
Appeal No. KAR-372 of 1989, decided on 23rd April, 1990.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M. Rafiq Malik for Appellant. Latifur Rahman Khan Survery for
Respondent No. 1.
AKHTAR MEHMOOD KHAN
VS
Messrs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Ltd. and 2 others AKHTAR MEHMOOD KHAN vs Messrs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Ltd. and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ---S.2(xxviii)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)--Workman--Whether an employee a workman--Test--Nature of work done by employee would be essential and fundamental consideration for determining question and not his designation which was not conclusive. General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and others v. Bashir A.Malik P L D 1986 S C 103 rel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ---Ss.2(xxviii) & 25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.15(4)--Workman--Appellant was confirmed as an Assistant Class-II and was redesignated as an Administrative Supervisor--Employer denied averment of appellant that he was a workman but did not give description of his duties in written statement--Appellant received overtime as a workman and was a member of Union--Salary slips produced by appellant showing that Union dues were deducted from his pay and he was, as such treated as a workman--Promotion of appellant as an Administrative Supervisor would have no effect on his position as a workman--Fact that he recommended leave applications or requisitioned stationery items were not a conclusive proof that he was not a workman--Employer produced no job description of duties performed by him, but appellant had given on oath description of duties which clearly showed that he was doing work of clerical nature--Averment of appellant as to duties he was performing had not been specifically challenged by employer although Labour Court disbelieved his evidence on ground that it was not supported by any documentary evidence--All documents were in possession of employer, who was supposed to produce same to disprove contention of appellant, but he did not prove same--Appellant, held, was a workman. (c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ---S.O.15(4)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25-A-Termination of services--Misconduct--Employer terminated services of worker because he was allegedly unable to perform his…
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