| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1374 1990 SLD 1374 1990 PLC 415 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. 29 of 1988, decided on 2nd October, 1988.
DEEDAR AHMED SOOMRO, PRESIDING OFFICER
Ali Ahmed for Applicant. S.S. Jahangir for Responden
Application No. 29 of 1988, decided on 2nd October, 1988.
DEEDAR AHMED SOOMRO, PRESIDING OFFICER
Ali Ahmed for Applicant. S.S. Jahangir for Responden
AMEEN KHAN
VS
Messrs STAR SILK AND RAYON MILLS, KARACHI AMEEN KHAN vs Messrs STAR SILK AND RAYON MILLS, KARACHI
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 25-A---Grievance petition against termination of services---Documentary evidence produced by applicant in support of his grievance neither disproved by employer nor any evidence produced by employer in support of termination of employee---Assertion of employee that about fifty workers had been working in employer's establishment not specifically denied by employer, rather same got corroboration from the record---Respondent's plea, that grievance notice and grievance petition were unsigned by applicant not borne out from record---As all the assertions of applicant in his affidavit in evidence stood unrebutted and legally established his illegal removal from service was established on record--Employer was ordered to reinstate employee with back benefits in circumstance. 1980 P L C 183; 1983 P L C 812 and 1981 P L C 690 ref. t. ORDER The applicant has filed this application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 stating therein that he is the permanent workman of the respondents having served them as a Weaver since 1961, and he demanded some of his rights and benefits as overtime wages and payment for leaves, Cost of Living Allowances and increase in wages at rate of 18% from the respondents, herein the respondents got annoyed and terminated him verbally on 12-12-1987 for which he sent the grievance notice dated 8-3-1988 by registered post A.D. which was received back with postal remarks and as "REFUSED". Hence he filed this application praying therein for reinstatement with full back benefits. The respondents filed the legal objections/reply statement stating therein that the application of the applicant is not maintainable within the meaning of section 25-A of I.R.O. 1909 as the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable because the number of workers employed by the respondents were always less than 10. Secondly that the respondents are not running the factory from 14-6-1985 as the factory was given on rent. Thirdly that it is small factory of only 8 power-looms and registered under Shops and Establishment Act. Fourthly that the applicant has been never employed of the respondents but…
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