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

MUHAMMAD ALI versus MILLS MANAGER NATIONAL EMBRIODERY MILLS LTD. FAISALABAD


West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section 2 (i) Workman's Watchtower Discharging Watch and Ward Duty are No Labor Workers' complaint against the termination of such watchman's service has been dismissed. Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII) 1969, Sections 25A & 38 (3)

1984 P L C 1100

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,

Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD ALI

Versus

MILLS MANAGER NATIONAL EMBRIODERY MILLS LTD. FAISALABAD

Appeal No. FD-388 of 1982, decided on 16th November, 1983.

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

----S. 2 (i)-"Workman"-Chowkidar discharging watch and ward duties-Not a workman-Dismissal of grievance petition against termination of service of such Chowkidar by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1.969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3).

Appellant in person.

S. M. Arij for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 13th November, 1983.

JUDGMENT

The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 14th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby holding that the appellant was not a workman and that service of grievance notice had not been established, the appellant's petition for his re-instatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant is a Chowkidar discharging his duties as a watch and ward. Such an employee has neither to do any manual nor clerical work. His duty is to remain present to look after the premises whereas according to the definition of workman given in S. 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 only that employee is a workman who does manual' or clerical skilled or unskilled worker. The appellant did not produce an iota of evidence regarding his duties. Even in his statement he did not say what work he used to do.

3. The service of grievance notice too was not proved. Neither any postal receipt nor any receipt of the employee of the respondent to whom the grievance notice may have been delivered was produced. No oral evidence too is on the record. Even the appellant did not say that he had in any manner served the grievance notice. No copy of grievance notice is on the record. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified 1n dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.

4. As a result of the above, the appeal is without any force and is dismissed.

A. E. 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
famous supreme court advocate from Manga Mandi 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.