Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 15070e07-2b45-4ebe-9526-0f2fdecd92bc
Body View case body.
Case Number QSA-511 of 1988
Decision Date Nov 02, 1988
Hearing Date
Decision The appeal was directed against a decision from 13-9-1988, where the respondent was reinstated with back benefits after being removed for habitual late coming. The tribunal held that the respondent, a hanks checker, performed manual work and did not possess supervisory powers as defined under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The evidence provided did not substantiate claims of habitual late coming or supervisory duties, leading to the conclusion that the respondent was indeed a workman and was wrongfully dismissed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Summary This case revolves around the classification of the respondent as a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Appellate Tribunal of Punjab evaluated the evidence surrounding the respondent's role as a hanks checker and the allegations of habitual late coming. The tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over oral claims, ultimately determining that the respondent's duties were manual in nature, thereby qualifying him as a workman. The ruling reinforces the legal definitions and protections afforded to workers, particularly in industrial relations, and highlights the tribunal's commitment to due process in labor disputes. This case is significant for understanding labor rights and the legal framework governing industrial relations. Keywords such as 'Industrial Relations', 'workman classification', and 'labor rights' are crucial for relevance in this domain.
Court Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Entities Involved Not available
Judges SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI
Lawyers Javed Altaf
Petitioners Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS Ltd.
Respondents Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS
Citations 1989 SLD 1443, 1989 PLC 624
Other Citations Not available
Laws Involved Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Sections 2(xxviii)