1997 PLP 394 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD KHURSHID Versus Messrs FAZAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1997 PLP 394 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHURSHID Versus Messrs FAZAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 394 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 394 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 394 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD KHURSHID Versus Messrs FAZAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.A.K. Azmati for Appellant.
- Mehboob Rizvi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th August; 1996.
- 4. Mr. Mehboob Rizvi for the Textile Mills has not been able to show whether a regular enquiry was held and by what evidence the allegations were proved. The respondent Mills merely relied on the report of the Enquiry Officer in which no evidence was recorded. The learned Advocate for the respondent now takes the stand that the termination may be regarded under Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance but in this case there was a regular charge‑sheet and stigma and a person cannot be terminated under Standing Order 12 for misconduct but under Order 15. Obviously the enquiry is defective and Standing Order 15(4) has not been complied with.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.Os. 12 & 15‑‑‑Termination of service of employee‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated on allegation of misconduct simply relying on report of Enquiry Officer in which neither any evidence was recorded nor employee was provided opportunity to defend himself‑‑‑Employer had contended that termination of employee could be regarded under S.O. 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Contention of employer was repelled in view of fact that services of employee were terminated on ground of misconduct‑‑‑Where there was a regular charge‑sheet and stigma an employee in that case could not be terminated under S.O. 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 but under S.O. 15 of that Ordinance‑‑‑Enquiry against employee being defective as S.O. 15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 had not been complied with, order terminating service of employee was set aside and employee was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 18th August; 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the grievance petition of the worker Muhammad Khurshid filed against Fazal Textile Mills for reinstatement in service.
2. The facts are that the services of the appellant were terminated on charges of misconduct, that:‑‑ (i) He paid excess payment of wages to three workers;' (ii) He made appointment of workers himself; (iii) He entered the name of workman Muhammad Ashraf in the Attendance Register when he was not on duty.
3. The Enquiry Officer sent his report that Time Keeper Muhammad Khurshid Anjum was guilty in respect of these charges and he had failed to explain any of these charges. A second show‑cause notice was issued alongwith the enquiry report. The appellant in his reply stated that the Enquiry Officer did not care to examine his defence evidence' but he only repeated his allegations. That his so‑called enquiry was illegal and against natural justice. In the order it was alleged that he was in the habit of marking the workers present when they were actually not working and his services were, therefore, terminated.
4. Mr. Mehboob Rizvi for the Textile Mills has not been able to show whether a regular enquiry was held and by what evidence the allegations were proved. The respondent Mills merely relied on the report of the Enquiry Officer in which no evidence was recorded. The learned Advocate for the respondent now takes the stand that the termination may be regarded under Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance but in this case there was a regular charge‑sheet and stigma and a person cannot be terminated under Standing Order 12 for misconduct but under Order
15. Obviously the enquiry is defective and Standing Order 15(4) has not been complied with.
5. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. H.B.T./169/Lb.S Appeal accepted.