Pakistan Case Law← Search
1994 PLC 51

ISHAQUDDIN SIDDIQUE vs M/S. PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY (PVT.) LTD.

Citation1994 PLC 51
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No. KAR-210 of 1992
Date1993-10-04
Judge(s)Agha Ali Hyder
ResultAppeal dismissed

DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dismissing the petitioner's grievance application. It arose in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner was working as a Typist in the State Engineering Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., from where his services were transferred with the respondents in November, 1988. The latter on 28-3-1990 had announced bonus at 3-1/2 basic pay. The version of the petitioner is that he had been given a payment slip for the amount of Rs.6,745 but the same had been withheld because of the pendency of a grievance application No. 29 of 1990 filed by him before the Labour Court.

3. As the amount he was entitled to i.e. Rs.6,745 was not being paid to him, but only Rs.5,845, he had sent a grievance notice and thereafter filed the grievance petition.

4. The claim was resisted by the respondent on various grounds including the maintainability of the application.

5. The Labour Court found that as the question of his status as a workman had already been determined in the previous petition referred to above, it did not need any fresh adjudication.

However, he had been offered the proper bonus open to a workman of Grade-VI and therefore the petition was dismissed.

6. Though it was not admitted unreservedly that the pay slip for Rs. 6,745 had been issued yet there is no gainsaying the fact that it was issued prior to the decision in the grievance application No. 29 of 1990. In the said decision the appellant was found to be a workman in Grade-VI. There is hardly any material available on the record to say how he is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.6,745, in the altered circumstances.

7. I do not, therefore, see any reason to arrive at any other conclusion than the one reached by the Labour Court. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search