Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MOOR HUSSAIN versus PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD.


West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section 2 (i) and Section O 12 (3) As a watchman, the sole duty of the security guard is not to complain against the termination of the employment of a person who is competent. Hearing Complaints Application Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII 1969), Section 25A

1983 P L C 227

[Labour Appellate Tribunal

Sind

]

Before Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal

MOOR HUSSAIN

Versus

PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD.

Appeal No. KAR‑191 of 1982, heard on 6th May, 1982.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑‑S. 2 (i) & S. O. 12 (3)‑Security Guard‑Sole duty as Chow kidar‑Not a workman‑Grievance petition against termination of service of such person‑Not maintainable‑Grievance petition Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Ch. M. Maarif for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 6th May, 1982.

DECISION

This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court, given on 23‑2‑1982, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman against his dismissal from service by the respondent‑Corporation. The learned Labour Court, in its impugned decision, has held that as the appellant himself has admitted that he is employed as a security guard and that he performed no other duty except the job of a Chowkidar at outer gate No. 3 of the Mechine Tool Factory, the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable, he not being a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. In support of its view the learned Labour Court placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in Rab Nawaz v. Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Appeal No KAR‑273/of 1981).

2. Mr. Ch. M. Maarif was unable to refute the admission of the appellant himself that he was employed as a security guard and his sole duty was that of a Chowkidar at the outher gate of the factory. This being the position, the appellant ‑would not come within the definition of workman as defined in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and hence would not be entitled file grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read wit section 25‑A, I. R. O. I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocate from Kotri lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.