Pakistan Case Law← Search
1996 PLC 233

GHULAM MURTAZA vs GENERAL MANAGER, M/S. HAKIMSONS CHEMICAL

Citation1996 PLC 233
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No, KAR-183 of 1995
Date1995-11-19
Judge(s)Mushtaq Ali Kazi
ResultAppeal allowed

DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellants as being not maintainable.

2. The appellant was working in the Sugar Coating Tablet Section of the Hakimsons Chemical Industries (Private) Limited. He was issued a letter of termination dated 18-11-1991 without stating any reasons.

3. It is the case of the respondent-company that the appellant was not a worker but an officer for supervising and controlling the workmen working under him. No reasons were therefore necessary in his case. The learned Labour Court having come to the conclusion that the respondent was not a workman, dismissed the grievance petition.

4. The only question in this appeal is whether Ghulam Murtaza appellant was a worker or a Manager. He had no academic qualification and had not even obtained a Matriculate Certificate. It is the case of the appellant that he was operating the Sugar Coating Machine himself, and there were only three persons working under him besides the sweeper. That he was himself testing and weighing the tablets and there was no question of the appellant doing the work of a Manager.

5. Mr. Qamruddin Hassan, Advocate has on the other hand argued that he' was designated as Manager Sugar Coating Department while the Department consisted only of 2 helpers and one supervisor in addition to a sweeper. It is said that there were 12 Machines and it is therefore not possible for 2 helpers and a supervisor alone to separate them. Possibly the appellant was himself operating the Machines with the help of the other three persons; as such he became a workman and this services could not be terminated without order in writing giving reasons for his termination. Since no masons Were assigned the termination was in. Violation of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance.

6. The order of the Labour Court is therefore set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with all the back benefits within 30 days from the date of this order.

Appeal is allowed

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