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‑86 of 1976, heard on 10th January 1977.
----S. 25‑A read with S. 2(xxviii) and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)‑"Workman"‑Definition as laid down by Industrial Rela tions Ordinance to be considered for determining grievance of work man under S. 25‑A and not that laid down by Standing Orders Ordinance‑"Workman", held, a workman‑[Writ Petition No. 311 of 1975 and P L D 1975 Kar. 297 standing overruled].
Writ Petition No. 311 of 1975 and P L D 175 Kar. 297 standing overruled.
Choudhry Rashid for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 10th January 1977.
This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance on the ground that the appellant was not a workman.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent and was working as a watchman. He was charge‑sheeted and after holding an inquiry he was found guilty. He was served with show‑cause notice and dismissed from service by letter dated 20th October, 1975. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appellant being a watchman was not a workman within the purview of Standing Orders Ordinance. This plea was accepted on the basis of the decision of High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in a Writ Petition No.511 of 1975. Another decision of the same High Court reported in P L D 1975 Kar. 297 was also relied upon. Aggrieved by the decision of the Labour Court, the present appeal was filed.
4. I have beard the learned counsel for the appellant while none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed before me a photostat copy of unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal ' No. KAR‑19 of 1976 in the case of Shahzad Khan v. Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi and others in which it was clearly held that in such cases the definition of the workman as laid down by Industrial Relations Ordinance has to be considered for determining the grievance of the workman under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance and, not the definition as laid down by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. In view of this clear dictum by the Supreme Court the rule laid down by the High Court must b6 deemed to have been overruled and cannot be followed.
5. In the result I hold that the appellant is a workman and, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside he impugned order. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for disposal on merits.
Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer