Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS Respondent: MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN JAPAN WITH LIMITED LIABILITY), KARACHI and another
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Mushtaq Ali Kazi Title:MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INCORPORATED IN JAPAN
WITH LIMITED LIABILITY), KARACHI and another Case No.: Appeal No, 153 of 1994 Date of Judgment:1995-11-30 Reported As: 1996 PLC 126 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment DECISION ' This appeal arises from order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of Muhammad Nawaz driver under section 25-A of the I.R.O. For re-instatement was dismissed. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he was working as a driver at the Corporation Office since June, 1960. In June, 1991 he was retired after he reached the age of 52 years. He gave grievance notice and then filed grievance petition for his premature retirement. 3. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant was appointed as a driver at the age of 24 years and not 21 years as claimed by him. That his date of birth was 1-6-1936. He was, therefore, retired with effect from 1-6-1991, after payments of all his legal dues. The learned lower Court found that the appellant had accepted the retirement and accepted all his dues. On the date of final hearing, the appellant had remained absent and his representative had also remained absent for want of instructions. That during his service he had not made any application for alteration of his date of birth registered with the company. Under the circumstances there was no evidence to suggest that his retirement was premature. That in any case the respondent company was registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance and there was no proof that 20 or more workers were employed in the office of the Corporation in Karachi. The grievance petition was, therefore, dismissed as being not maintainable. 4. The learned Representative Mr. Abdul Majeed has not been able to present himself for arguments even in this Tribunal on account of the alleged illness and the appellant too has
---
## Page 2
remained absent. I can see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court. The appeal has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed.