Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1975 PLC 385

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Messrs ABBA UMER HAJI DADA & Co., HYDERABAD

Citation1975 PLC 385
CourtIndustrial Court
Date1973-01-01
Judge(s)Manzoor Ahmad E. Shaikh
ResultN/A

1. AWARD The applicant was employed on monthly wages by the respondent- Company for a long time. But from 19th June 1972 he was dismissed from service without any notice, charge-sheet or opportunity of defence. This, he considers to be unlawful and a denial of the rights guaranteed and/or secured under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments^Ordinance, 1969. He has therefore filed this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance praying that the respondent be ordered to re-instate him from the aforementioned date with full wages and other benefits for the intervening period. The respondent has denied if the applicant was ever employed with him. He states that the applicant had been working as a "Palledar" and works wherever he gets the job of loading and unloading and further that some times he has been unloading bags at the respondent's shop against a payment of 5 paisas per bag and loading the same bags on payment of 6 paisas per bag from the customers. In short it is denied if the applicant was a permanent worker and was dismissed from service as alleged. Evidence has been recorded from both sides and arguments have also been heard. The applicant in his application has neither mentioned the monthly pay he was receiving from the respondent nor has he shown the period of his service with the respondent. On the contrary it is admitted by him that he was doing labour work on payment from the respondent as well as his customers for the loading and unloading of the bags. He has thus failed to prove if he was a permanent employee or if he falls under the definition of a workman as defined under the Labour Laws. He has also failed to prove the rights secured to him under the provisions of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance of 1969. In fact it appears ^ that he has been doing stray labour work as contended by the respondent. There being no violation of any rights of the applicant, his application is not liable to succeed and it is hereby dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch