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. F. D‑242 of 1983, decided on 13th June, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 2 (xxviii), 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Bank employee‑‑Disputed to be not a workman‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on grounds that petitioner was not a "workman" under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 No findings given whether petitioner was covered by definition of workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, held, not applicable to Banks hence order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision afresh after recording findings on fact whether peti tioner was a workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.
Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 9th June, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 29th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby holding the appellant as not a workman as defined in Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, his grievance petition was dismissed.
2. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to banks, the definition of workman given in it is not relevant and only definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is to be looked into. The learned lower Court has said that the appellant being a workman as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not disputed. This observation is wrong. In the written statement it is contended that the appellant is not a workman. In preliminary objection No. 1 of the written statement, it is contended by the respondent that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to banks. So, it is clear that the respondent meant that the appellant was not a workman as defined in I. R. O. So, the learned lower Court should have recorded its finding on the point and was not justified in holding that the point was not disputed. No finding has been recorded by the learned lower Court on facts.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision in the light of the observations made above.
A. B.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer