KHALID vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY AKORA KHATTAK, DISTRICT OWSHERA, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA S — 2022 PLC 15 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2022 PLC 15 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court: Peshawar High Court
Year: 2022
Reporter: PLC
Parties: KHALID vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY AKORA KHATTAK, DISTRICT OWSHERA, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA S
Subject matter: Constitutional
Provisions referred to: S. 2

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

KHALID VS PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY AKORA KHATTAK, DISTRICT OWSHERA, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA S.2(xxxiii)---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)---Termination without conducting proper inquiry---"Worker" and "workman"---Distinction---Petitioners filed grievance petition claiming breach of S.O. 12(3) of the Ordinance, 1968 which was allowed by Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service---Full Bench NIRC accepted the appeals of respondents---Validity---Petitioners had to qualify and should fall within the definition of "worker" as provided in S.2(i) of the Industrial Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which included that an employee of an establishment/industry would not be a "workman" if he would not perform any skilled/unskilled manual/clerical work---"Workman" was that employee of an establishment/industry, who performed a work involving physical exertion which was more or less distinct from intellectual or the one involving decision taking at higher or lower level---If scope of an employee's duties required imagination, observation, rational approach, application of mind and specialized knowledge or evaluating the performance of certain categories of employees or other persons, he would not fall within the definition of a workman---Petitioners' scope of duties were not manual but they had the opportunity to apply their independent mind while performing their duties---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Head Notes

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLC

2022 PLC 62 SUPREME-COURTDIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, QUETTA POSTAL DIVISION VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM S. 25(1)--- Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ord…
2022 PLC 62 SUPREME-COURTDIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, QUETTA POSTAL DIVISION VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM S. 2(1)(b)(iii)---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S. 2(xxxiii)--…
2022 PLC(CS) 1603 SUPREME-COURTHADAYAT ULLAH VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN art. 188---Review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Scope---Review jurisdiction of the Court opera…
2022 PLC(CS) 646 ISLAMABADNAEEM ANWAR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Textile arts.91, 92, 93 & 67(1)---Power of advisor to the…
2022 PLC 15 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTKHALID VS PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY AKORA KHATTAK, DISTRICT OWSHERA, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA S.2(i)---"Salesman", status of---Scope---Work of sale…
2022 PLC(CS) 73 ISLAMABADHAMID NASRULLAH RANJHA VS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD, ICT Deputation---Scope---Government servant begins to be regarded as a deputationis…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English