Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1473 2001 SLD 1473 2001 SCMR 1307
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.328 of 2000, decision dated: 28-07-2000. (On Appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 27-3-2000 passed in Constitution Petition No.229 of 1998)
RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Qamarul Islam Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Messrs SHAHEEN AIRPORT SERVICES

VS

NAFEESULHASSAN SIDDIQUI and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.l85Appeal to Supreme CourtRaising of new pleaScopeNew plea cannot be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court. [Caselaw referred]. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss.2(xxviii) & 25AConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)­"Workman" DefinitionDismissal from serviceGrievance petition­Employee whether falling within the definition of 'workman'­DeterminationEmployee was dismissed by the employer on the ground of inefficiency and poor performanceLabour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the employee, considering him not falling within the definition of 'workman'Appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal was allowed and the order was upheld by the High CourtContention by the employer was that the employee was not a 'workman'ValidityJob description given by the employee was never challenged and the same had made it clear that he was performing manual workLabour Appellate Tribunal and High Court had correctly determined that the employee was not termed as Manager or Supervisor taking him out from the definition of 'workman'No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the forums below and the order passed by High Court was free from any legal infirmitySupreme Court declined to interfere with the order of High CourtLeave to appeal was refused. PLD 1986 SC 103; 1998 SCMR 644; Abdul Razaq v. Ihsan Sons Ltd. 1992 SCMR 505 and Rehmat Ali v. The Security Paper Mills Ltd. and another PLD 1982 Kar. 913 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185Appeal to Supreme CourtScopeFindings of fact, review of Substituting findings by Supreme Court in place of those arrived at by lower forumsScopeSupreme Court could not review findings of fact reached by inferior Court or Tribunal, even if the same were erroneous­Where the Legislature did not choose to confer a right of appeal against the decision, the review by Supreme Court would be defeating its purpose and policySupreme Court could not rehear the case on evidence and substitute its own findings, unless exercise of power by Tribunal was in violation of some provisions of law or in excess of jurisdiction or the same suffered from failure to exercise…
🔒
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