Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 2822 2003 SLD 2822 2003 PLC 20
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. RI-4 and RI-10 of 2001, decision dated: 20-02-2002.
JUSTICE (RETD.) IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN

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

ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Attorneys

VS

Syed NASIR ABBAS NAQVI

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1961)--------S.25-A---Grievance notice---Service of---Service of grievance notice by the employee upon employer before filing grievance petition was a sine qua non and its non-service was fatal to grievance petition---Departmental appeal to Authority could not be treated as grievance notice. 1999 PLC 466; 1982 PLC 389; 1982 PLC 616 and 1982 CLC 920 ref. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ----Ss.2(xxviii) & 25-A---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)---Status of workman---Determination of---Grievance petition ---Maintainability--­Petitioner, a Bank employee who was working as Officer Grade III, was not only holding a power of attorney, but at material time was acting in fiduciary and managerial capacity---Petitioner, in circumstances, was not a "workman" to maintain grievance petition before Labour Court, especially when nothing was on record which could. tend to show that petitioner was burdened with any function which could legitimately be called as manual or clerical in nature---Even otherwise an officer of Bank who was holding a power of attorney was not a workman. 1985 SCMR 1511 and 1985 CLC 403 ref. (c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)------ ---S.1(4)(a)---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25-A--- Applicability of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968---Grievance petition, maintainability ­Of---Petitioner at relevant time was serving in a Branch of the Bank as officer, in Grade-III where less than twenty workers were employed---Branch of the Bank was a separate establishment because; it had separate premises; it had a separate Manger; had separate account holders and account holders of cane branch could not operate same account at another branch; had separate Cheque Books; employee posted at one branch was only required to work there unless transferred and each branch required a separate permission from State Bank of Pakistan under S.28(1) of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 read with R.11 of Banking…
🔒
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