Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1792 1991 SLD 1792 1991 PLC 29
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-336 of 1989, decided on 6th March, 1990.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
S. M. Yaqoob for Appellant. Ibne Ayub, Representative for
Respondent.

METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD.

VS

SALATI GUL METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD. vs SALATI GUL

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.O.12(3)---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25-A & 38(3)--­Termination of services---Workman was initially employed for a period of thirty days but continued to work after that---Workman when not to acquire status of permanent workman---Workman having been employed on temporary basis his continuing to work for few more days after the expiry of initial period of his employment would not make him a permanent workman---Mere fact that order in writing as required under S.O. 12 of Ordinance VI of 1968 was served on workman after period of nine months would not confer upon him the status of a permanent workman. Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Court No. V and others P L D 1980 S C 323 and Muhammad Rauf v. Makran Fisheries Ltd. and another 1981SCMR631ref. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-- ---S.O. 12---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--­Termination of service---Legality---Workman having been employed on temporary basis, continued to work after the stipulated period---Workman's services having been terminated he denied having received any notice in writing as to termination of his services and filed grievance petition---Employer claimed to have served such notice but service of notice upon workman was not proved--­Employer would be deemed to have served notice in writing to workman when he informed Labour Court on specified date that he had terminated services of workman---Employer was directed to pay back benefits and other dues admissible to workman upto the date when termination order became effective. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1990. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, dated 2-7-1989, whereby he ordered reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was admittedly employed by the appellant vide order, dated 22-2-1988 as mason purely on temporary basis for thirty days. However, he continued to…
🔒
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