Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 720 1992 SLD 720 1992 PLC 271
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. 254 of 1991, decided on 20th October, 1991..
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

OMEGA HOSIERY MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

VS

MUHAMMAD IQBAL OMEGA HOSIERY MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ----S.2(xxviii)---Workman---It was not designation or amount of salary which determined character of employee as a workman, but nature of duties performed by him, would determine whether he was workman or not. General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others PLD 1986 SC 103 rel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A---Employee who initially was appointed by employer as stitcher in his factory, was promoted to technical supervisor---Being a technical supervisor, employee was doing job of supervisory nature and was drawing pay more than Rs.800 per month---Employee could not produce any evidence about nature of his duty whether it involved manual or clerical work, skilled or unskilled and whether such work was main part of his duties or it was ancillary or incidental to his supervisory duties---Employee whose services were terminated for refusing to perform his duties admittedly not being workman, could not move Labour Court for reinstatement under S. 25-A of Ordinance, 1969. Pakistan National Oils Ltd., Dacca v. The Chairman, Second Labour Court of East Pakistan and 2 others 1970 PLC 733 and Pioneer Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V, Karachi 1978 PLC 293 rel. (c) Industrial dispute-- ---- Termination of service---Reinstatement---Services of employee were terminated as he admittedly refused to work, though he punched his card daily---Mere fact that employee punched his card daily, would not make him present in premises, but he would be deemed to have been absent from duty as he refused to perform his entrusted duties---Services of employee were rightly terminated in circumstances. Nazar Muhammad v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and another 1985 PLC 579 ref. Mehmood A. Ghani, Representative for Appellant. Raja Shamsuzzaman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1991. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. III at Karachi, dated 4-5-1991 whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was allowed and he…
🔒
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