Munir Ahmad

BEFORE THE PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, LAHORE.

Muhammad Idrees Ex-Laboratory Engineer Vs. Project Manager, Tekser Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S.

Written Statement for and on behalf of respondent.

Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.

That the claim of wages is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

2.

That the petitioner is not workman within the meaning and contemplation of West Pakistan Commercial and Employment Standing Order Ordinance, 1968; and also under the provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, therefore the petition is not maintainable.

3.

That the petitioner having received full and final settlement of his claim and having acknowledged the same, no more aggrieved workman and therefore cannot approach this Hon’ble Court and as such the petition is not maintainable.

4.

That the petitioner is a Supervisor performing duty of supervisory nature, drawing salary more than 800/- per month is not at all a workman, but a supervisor.

5.

That the company has not been arrayed as a respondent, therefore, the petition is not maintainable due to NONJOINDER and MISS-JOINDER.

6.

That the petitioner has no locus standi to file present petition.

7.

That the petitioner has got no cause of action to file the instant petition.

ON FACTS: 1.

That para No. 1 of the petition is not admitted. The petitioner was a temporary employee and his services were terminated on 28.11.2000. The petitioner is not at all a workman.

2.

That the contents of para No. 2 of the petition are also not admitted.

3.

That para No. 3 of the petition is not admitted.

4.

That para No. 4 of the petition is admitted that his termination was carried on 28.11.2000 and the petitioner received his full and final settlement and while calculating the settlement dues, the petitioner received an extra amount of Rs. 34,067/-, which he is liable to pay and for which company reserves the right to recover the same from the competent court of law.

5.

That the contents of para No. 5 of the petition are not admitted as correct. Dues received by the petitioner have been strictly calculated according to requirement of law and as already mentioned in above para, the petitioner has received extra amount, for which the company reserves the right to recover the same.

6.

That para No. 6 of the petition is not admitted as correct.

7.

That para No. 7 of the petition is not admitted as correct. The Labour Court is not the proper forum for claiming over time & wages and for illegal deduction from wages.

8.

That in reply to para No. 8 of the petition is not admitted as correct but he has received extra amount of Rs. 34,067/-, for which the company has got the right to recover according to law.

9.

That in reply to para No. 9 it is stated that the petitioner served a grievance notice which was duly replied with. That the prayer of the petitioner is not based on facts and law. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the petition of the petitioner both on facts and law having without merits. For & on behalf of respondent Dated: _________ Project Manager

Through: Sahibzada Ibrahim, Advocate High Court, Multan.