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‑221 of 1984, decided on 27th January, 1985.
‑‑S. 25‑A & 36‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11 Practice and procedure‑Grievance petition claiming gratuity on basis of existing settlement‑Decision depending upon facts as to (i) what was the salary of petitioner for purpose of jurisdiction of Labour Court, (ii) whether petitioner was entitled to gratuity, (iii) whether petitioner was a workman, and (iv) whether West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968 was applicable‑Labour Court without recording evidence rejecting petition under O. VII, r. 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits after opportunity of evidence to parties.
S. A. Channa for Appellant.
Shaukat Ali A. Nanji for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 27th January, 1985.
This is an appeal against the impugned order of the Sind Labour Court No. 5 at Karachi, who had rejected the grievance application of one Syed Ajab Shah under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. on 30th August, 1984.
2. The appeal was argued by Mr. S. A. Channa on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Shaukat Ali A. Nanji on behalf of the respondents.
3. The facts. are that the appellant has filed a grievance petition wherein he had claimed Gratuity on the eve of his retirement on 30th October, 1983. He was a worker with the respondents' establishment and as such the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to him. Further, Mr. Channa has contended that his services were terminated as such Standing Order 12(3) is applic able. According to the agreement arrived at between the Union of Workers and the respondent Management, they were to be paid back salaries which were disputed.
4. The learned Labour Court opined that his salary was Rs. 925 as such Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition. whereas the learned counsel has stated that over and above Rs. 925, he used to get Rs. 100 for about 20 days in a month which should be included in his wages and no evidence has been brought on record to determine what wages the appellant used to receive per month. The settlement which was pending between the parties for the recovery of unpaid salaries for the years 1972‑73 is a question to be minutely dealt with by the Labour Court and arrive at a decision whether the same would be time‑barred. After hearing the two counsels, I am of the opinion that this grievance petition needs evidence to be recorded and the evidence be cross‑examined in respect of (1) what salary the petition or appellant got per month, (2) whether he is entitled to gratuity, (3) whether the Standing Orders are applicable, and (4) whether he was a worker or workman in the establish ment of respondents.
5. I hereby set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and remand it to the same Labour Court to examine by and adducing evidence properly and determine the question dealt above and decide it according to merit.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer