Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD USMAN VS Respondent: UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHIHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
1988 P L C 562
1988 P L C 562
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD USMAN
Versus
UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI
Appeal No. G A‑695 of 1986, decided on 13th December, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Appeal‑‑Labour Court reaching conclusion that appellant was not covered by definition of workman as per decision of High Court (1985 P L C 1053) and returning grievance petition of appellant for want of jurisdiction with direction that if Supreme Court set aside ruling of High Court, appellant would be entitled to get his grievance petition decided on merits‑‑No interference, held, called for with order of Labour Court refusing to decide petition on merits‑ Appeal dismissed.
Zafar Saleem for the Appellant. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 22‑11‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was directed to be returned to him for want of jurisdiction; further directing that if the Supreme Court sets aside the ruling of the High Court reported in 1985 P L C 1053, the appellant would be entitled to get his grievance petition decided on merits from the said Court.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned lower Court should have recorded its findings on the merits of the case also so that in case the Supreme Court holds that bank employees who go to the Labour Courts after their removal from service are workmen, the appellant could be reinstated in service if the grievance petition had been accepted on merits. Since the learned lower Court has found that it has no jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant is not, by virtue of 1985 P L C 1053, covered by the definition of workman, it was not necessary for the learned lower Court to record findings on the merits of the case. It would not have been out of place if the decision had been recorded on merits also, but refusal to do so does not call for any interference.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
M. Y. H. /284/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.