Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 1154 1990 SLD 1154 1990 SCMR 1539
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 10 of 1988, decision dated: lst.August,1989.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, JJ
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Khakan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB

VS

THE PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 1 and 5 others

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-------S.O. 1(1)---Permanent workman---Determination of---Length of employment by itself having not been made ground or test for determining nature of works where work of employee was not of a permanent nature, however long may be his employment, he could not be taken to be a permanent workman---Person who served as a work-charged employee on daily wages and who was not paid wages for Fridays, cannot claim to be a permanent workman even if he served for 8 years. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185(3)---No question of law requiring further examination by Supreme Court was raised by petitioner---Leave to appeal was refused. JUDGMENT SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner was employed as a Mate Mali in the Lahore Development Authority and served on the work charge establishment for eight years. While his grievance alongwith others was pending in the Labour Court, the services of the Petitioner were terminated and he challenged the termination order. The Labour Court held as hereunder:-- "It is further declared that by virtue of eight years of his service, it was clear that he was working against a permanent post and was a permanent employee of the Lahore Development Authority, Lahore." 2. An appeal was taken to the appellate Court and it reversed the judgment holding as hereunder:- "A person who does not work continuously for more than ninety days and has not satisfactorily completed the probationary period, he cannot be a permanent worker. The respondent has in his very grievance petition said that he is a work-charged employee. He appeared as his own witness but did not say whether he used to get wages for the full month including wages for Fridays and holidays. If he was not paid wages for…
🔒
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