Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. KAR-624 of 1973, decided on 12th November 1973.
Ss. 25-A & 37-Termination of service-Relief against-Respon dent contesting petition on ground that petitioner was never in his service-Petition dismissed by Labour Court for want of proof of service--l-lea in appeal that if respondent appears and swears before Tribunal that petitioner was not in his employment he would accept same-Such request or plea, hell, should have been made to Labour Court who may have given option to respondentto accept such offer or not-Rejection of petition, in circumstances, upheld.
Appellant in person.
Abdul Razzaq for Respondent.
This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, dated August 18. Whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant, filed under 0ecttion 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The appellant was cmr loycd as a coolie iii January 1971 and his services were terminated on 17th November 1971 without any enquiry or shove-cause notice. On the other hand, Vie case of the respondent w.,s that the appellant was never in his employment.
2. The appellant has appeared in parson. He stated before me that if the' Proprietor of the Mill were to appear before this Labour Court and swear that hey was not in his employment, he will accept the same. This is a belated request He should have made this request before the learned Labour Court, who may have given an option to the respondent to accept the term offered by the appellant or to refuse the same. The appellant examined himself and one Mr. Moin On the other hand, the respondent produced Mr. Abdul Sattar, Manager of the Factory, and produced the Attendance Register commencing from January 1971 to December 1971. There is nothing on the record of this case to throw any suspicion on the Attendance Register produced by the respondent. The name of the appellant does not appear in the Attendance Register. The most significant fast is that the name of the witness Mfr. Main does appear in the Attendance: Register. Mr. Main also produced his Attendance Card. This circumstance suggasts that the Attendance Register is a genuine one. No ground has been made to set aside tile order of the B learned Labour Court.
3. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer