1992 PLP 906 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS (LTD.), KARACHI Versus MUNAWAR BAKHT and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP 906 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS (LTD.), KARACHI Versus MUNAWAR BAKHT and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 906 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 906 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 906 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS (LTD.), KARACHI Versus MUNAWAR BAKHT and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Farid Gul Khan for Respondents.
- Mr. Masood Mirza present on behalf of appellant has been heard. Mr. Farid Gul Khan for respondent has sent application for adjournment which is rejected. None else is present for the respondent. I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Judgment & Decree
Farid Gul Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1991. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi dated 8th October, 1989 whereby grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. Mr. Masood Mirza present on behalf of appellant has been heard. Mr. Farid Gul Khan for respondent has sent application for adjournment which is rejected. None else is present for the respondent. I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Admittedly the respondent was workman employed by the appellant. He allegedly remained absent from 4-3-1989 for which he was charge-sheeted on 19-3-1989 and was further charge-sheeted on 29-3-1989 but he is alleged to have continuously remained absent. His services were terminated by an order dated 1-7-1989 Exh. AW/1. Being aggrieved by the order the respondent served grievance notice upon the appellant and then filed the grievance petition. It may be pertinent to reproduce the termination order which reads as under:- "Since you are not interested in the employment of the mills, the management has no other choice but to terminate your services. Your services are therefore terminated with immediate effect." Mr. Masood Mirza contends that this was an order of termination simpliciter without attaching any stigma upon the respondent. The order no doubt does not show that he had remained absent, but the fact as disclosed in evidence clearly shows that he had been removed from service for remaining absent for which he had been admittedly charge-sheeted. By not mentioning the factum of absence in the order, the appellant has tried to circumvent the mandatory provisions of Standing Order 15(4) and without giving opportunity to the respondent to explain the circumstances against him and without holding independent enquiry his services have been terminated. Such an order is not tenable and has rightly been set aside by the learned Labour Court. I therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. However if the appellants, so desire, they may hold enquiry in accordance with law on the basis of charge -sheets mentioned above and complete enquiry within three months. The payment of back benefits to the respondent would be dependent upon the result of such enquiry. In case enquiry is not held or completed within the period specified above the amount of back benefits be released to the respondent. M.Y.H./1863/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.