| Case ID |
f571a770-4e28-4025-8db0-fbc85fb2dba2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Petition No. 997 of 1976 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 30, 1976 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The petitioner's claim was dismissed. The petitioner, who was a Head Jobber, argued that his termination was unjust without inquiry into misconduct. However, it was established that he held a supervisory position and did not fall under the definition of a workman. The court noted that the employer had the right to abolish the post, and since the petitioner had been promoted to administrative staff, he could not revert to the position of a workman. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. |
| Summary |
In this significant case, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of Punjab examined the termination of a Head Jobber, highlighting critical aspects of employment law and industrial relations. The tribunal addressed whether the petitioner qualified as a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The decision emphasized the distinction between supervisory roles and worker classifications, affirming the employer's right to abolish positions based on operational needs. The case underscores the importance of clarity in job definitions and the legal implications of retrenchment in industrial settings. This ruling serves as a key reference for similar disputes in the realm of employment law, particularly regarding the rights of employees versus the prerogatives of employers in restructuring their workforce. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
|
| Entities Involved |
KOHINOOR SPINNING MILLS LTD.
|
| Judges |
RAI ABDUR RAZZAQUE KHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MUHAMMAD MUNIR
|
| Lawyers |
Saduilah Mumtaz,
Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui
|
| Petitioners |
|
| Respondents |
KOHINOOR SPINNING MILLS LTD.
|
| Citations |
1977 SLD 1585,
1977 PLC 213
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
|
| Sections |
2(viii),
2(xxviv)
|