PAKISTAN BEVERAGES LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL Sched — 2025 PLC 73 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

PAKISTAN BEVERAGES LIMITED VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL Sched. Para 1(b), S.Os. 2(g) & 12---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S. 33---Reinstatement into service---Permanent workman---Entitlement---Temporary / casual workman---Scope---Company / Establishment filed constitutional petition as the National Industrial Relations Commission re-instated the respondents---Held, that definition 2(g) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, ('the Ordinance, 1968') provides the classification of the workman, which is sub-divided into six categories i.e. (i) permanent, (ii) probationers, (iii) badlis, (iv) temporary, (v) apprentice and (vi) contract workers---A temporary workman is defined in the Schedule to the Ordinance, 1968 as a workman who has been engaged for work of a temporary nature, which is likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months---The protection of the, daily wagers who have been performing their duties against permanent posts for a long period is Para 1(b) of the Schedule attached to the Ordinance, 1968---Standing Order 12 of the Ordinance 1968 provides that no temporary workmen (whether monthly rated, weekly rated daily rated or piece rated and no probational or badali shall be entitled to any notice if his services are terminated by the employer, nor shall any such workman be required to give any notice or pay wages in lieu thereof to the employer if he leaves the employment of his own accord---However, the situation is quite different than the permanent workman under Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance, 1968---Thus, NIRC had erroneously granted the benefit of reinstatement of service to the respondents by holding that the respondents fell within the definition of permanent 'workmen', which findings were based on guesswork, conjectures and suffered from misreading of evidence and record, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice---High Court set-aide impugned orders passed by NIRC---Constitutional petition, filed by Company / Establishment, was allowed, in circumstance. Citation Name: 2025 PLC 73 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case PAKISTAN BEVERAGES LIMITED VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL Sched. Para 1(b), S.Os. 2(g) & 12---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012 ), S. 33---Reinstatement into service---Permanent workman---Entitlement---Evidence, deficiency of---Company /Establishment filed constitutional petition as the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) re-instated the respondents concluding that the respondents (thirteen in number) had produced sufficient material to show that they were permanent workers who had been working in petitioner /establishment as workers for the last several years---Validity---Record, revealed that the respondents only produced the I.D Card / attendance card issued by the petitioner /company where they were shown to be casual workers---Evidence adduced by respondents also revealed their certain adverse admissions relating to different respondents (as grievance petitioners) like not attaching the copy of the I.D card, not signing the grievance petition, no authority letter, casual workers written on the duty card, not being aware whether grievance notices were sent to the petitioner company or otherwise and not signing power of attorney---Thus, entire burden ought not to have been shifted upon the petitioner / company alone by the NIRC, whereas the respondents were set free as they failed to prove through cogent material that they rendered their services for the petitioner / company for more than nine months as required under the law---In the absence of such material, the petitioner / company could not be directed to reinstate their services which were of a temporary nature---National Industrial Relations Commission had erroneously granted the benefit of reinstatement of service to the respondents by holding that the respondents fall within the definition of permanent 'workmen', which findings were based on guesswork, conjectures and suffered from misreading of evidence and record, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice---High Court set-aide impugned orders passed by NIRC---Constitutional petition, filed by Company / Establishment, was allowed, in circumstance. Citation Name: 2025 PLC 73 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case PAKISTAN BEVERAGES LIMITED VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL Termination of service---Verbal order---Effect---Under the labour laws, there is no provision permitting the employer to terminate the services of the worker verbally without a written order---Termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour law.

PAKISTAN BEVERAGES LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL Sched — 2025 PLC 73 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC