Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 1390 1990 SLD 1390 1990 PLC 423
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-374 of 1985, heard on 23rd November, 1988.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, 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

Syed IRSHAD HUSSAIN

VS

Messrs KOHINOOR SOAP AND DETERGENT LTD., KARACHI Syed IRSHAD HUSSAIN vs Messrs KOHINOOR SOAP AND DETERGENT LTD., KARACHI

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S. 2(i)---Industrial .Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 2(xxviii)---Workman--Requirements---Determining factor---Whether employee predominantly performs a manual work or such manual work is incidental to main work---Senior Soap Boiling Technician with salary of Rs.2,332 p.m. working as incharge of shift getting work done through technicians, skilled and unskilled workers and because of his high skill, knowledge and experience, responsible to supervise process of manufacturing of soap to ensure that same was done in a technically correct manner, is a supervisor and not a workman. Rehmat Ali v. Security Papers Ltd. P L D 1982 Kar. 913; Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills v. Abdul Ghani and others P L D 1975 Kar. 342; 1979 S C M R 304; Muhammad Aqil v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1978 Kar. 649; Gencral Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore v. Bashir A. Malik etc. P L D 1986 S C 103 and Workers of Bata Shoes Co. v. Bata Shoes Co. Ltd. and another 1971 P L C 1 rel. Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant. S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988. DECISION This appeal is directed against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. II at Karachi, dated 26-10-1985, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was admittedly working as Senior Soap Boiling Technician with the respondents when his services were terminated, vide letter, dated 12-2-1985. He gave grievance notice to the respondents and being dissatisfied with the reply, filed grievance petition before the Labour Court challenging the legality of the impugned order. It was contended by the appellant that he had been removed because he was taking interest in the trade union activities and that the persons, junior to him, had been retained in service while his services had been terminated. The respondents resisted the petition on the ground that due to re-organization as the post of Senior Soap Boiling Technician was found to be surplus, therefore, the appellant who was incumbent of the post, was…
🔒
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