Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. KAR‑214 of 1984, heard on 19th January, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑"Workman"‑‑Security‑guard performing neither skilled nor unskilled manual job or work of clerical nature, held, would not be a workman‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service of such security‑guard was, not maintainable.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Appellant.
Azmatullah Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986.
This is an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court No.1, at Karachi, who decided the grievance petition on 30‑8‑1984. He dismissed the petition of the appellant.
2. Petitioner, Abdul Qayyum was a Security Guard in the respondent Corporation. On 16‑5‑1983 at 1‑00 a.m., the appellant was found sleeping in a hotel during duty hours. He was checked and subsequently, an enquiry was held and he was found guilty of dereliction of duties and found guilty of misconduct. He was, therefore, dismissed from service. The appellant filed a grievance petition.
3. The respondent‑Corporation filed a reply statement stating that the petition is not maintainable as the Security Guard does not come within the ambit of workman or worker as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. An affidavit of Abdul Qayyum was filed and he was cross‑examined and the affidavit of Amir Hussain Moghul, Depot Manager, North Karachi Depot was filed and he was also cross‑examined. The matter was argued by the respective representatives of the parties.
5. No evidence is brought on record to indicate that the appellant did any skilled or non‑skilled or manual job or he did the work of clerical nature. Since no evidence is led by the appellant in this respect, ordinarily, therefore, he would not come within the ambit of the definition of the worker. The grievance petition was held by the learned Labour Court to be not maintainable.
6. As regards the domestic enquiry held against the appellant, it is proper, and fully participated by the appellant. I feel that there is no case of the appellant in view of the evidence on record and he is IC Security Guard and does not come within the said definition. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer