Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-------S. 25-A---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12---Termination of service on attaining age of superannuation ---Employee after crossing age of sixty years was due for retirement, employer had not committed any illegality in retiring him---Employee was entitled to payment of back benefits and special allowance due to him. Faruq A. Ghani for Appellant. Muhammad Tasnim for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th September 2000. DECISION This case has arisen from the order, dated 26th October, 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No. V. Karachi, whereby the respondent Syed Amir Haider was reinstated, in service with full back-benefits. The case of the respondent, as reflected in his grievance petition, was to the following effect. He entered service of the Appellants/Establishment as a Personal Assistant on 16-7-1979 on the salary of Rs.1,800 per month which was subsequently increased to Rs.2,000 per month. By the Sindh Ordinance No. XI of 1991, employees in Sindh were allowed Special Allowance of Rs.200 per month with effect from 1-12-1990 irrespective of the amount of their wages. Due to the respondent's continues demand for payment of the said allowance, the Appellants got annoyed with him and verbally terminated his services. He was stopped from working with effect from 5-9-1991. Thereupon, the respondent served a grievance notice dated 30-9-1991 on the appellants by registered post A/D but they gave no reply to the said notice. Hence he filed grievance petition with two-fold prayer of reinstatement and payment of back-benefits. 2. In Reply Statement the Appellants/Establishment questioned the maintainability of the grievance petition on the grounds; firstly, that the respondent was Personnel Officer at the time of termination of his service and not a workman; secondly, the Appellants/Establishment was registered under West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance and, thirdly, there were only.8 Employees working in the Appellants /Establishment and hence I.R.O. 1969 was not applicable. Appellants/Establishment also averred that the respondent was in the habit…

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