Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The private respondents were employed by the petitioner-club as a Baker and a Cook in different years.The private respondents were terminated from their services on specific dates in 2007.The private respondents filed Grievance Applications under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, claiming that their termination was illegal.The learned Sindh Labour Court No.1 (SLC) Karachi, after hearing the case, allowed the grievance applications and ordered the reinstatement of the private respondents with back benefits.The petitioner-club, dissatisfied with the SLC's decision, filed appeals before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLAT), which were subsequently dismissed.The petitioner-club then approached the High Court of Sindh to challenge the judgments of the SLC and SLAT.The primary issues before the court were whether the private respondents were permanent employees of the club and whether their termination was legal.Key Findings:The court found that the duties assigned to the private respondents fell within the definition of "worker" or "workman" as per relevant labor laws.The court held that the SLC had jurisdiction to entertain the grievance applications of the private respondents.The court rejected the claim that the petitioner-club had been condemned unheard, stating that both the SLC and SLAT had carefully considered the evidence and issues before them.The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and found no grounds for interference in their judgments.The High Court ultimately dismissed both the petitions.This judgment suggests that the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower labor courts, which ordered the reinstatement of the private respondents with back benefits, finding no legal basis for overturning those decisions.

Summary: The dispute arises from the termination of employment of private respondents, who were employees of M/s Sindh Club, a petitioner in these cases. Private respondents claim they were terminated unfairly and filed Grievance Applications under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Both the SLC and SLAT ruled in favor of the private respondents, finding their terminations illegal and ordering their reinstatement with back benefits. The petitioner-club contests these judgments, alleging errors in the interpretation of evidence and legal aspects. They argue that the private respondents were not permanent workers, and thus the reinstatement orders are unlawful. They also contend that the private respondents were not entitled to back benefits and that the grievance applications were not maintainable. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The court ruled that the private respondents were indeed permanent employees, and the termination was unjustified. The court rejected the petitioner-club's claims of errors and found no grounds for interference with the lower courts' decisions. As a result, the constitution petitions were dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending