1997 PLP 424 (PLC)
Messrs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MUHAMMAD ASLAM LTD., KARACHI through Notified Manager under the Factories Act, 1934 Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH and another
| Citation | 1997 PLP 424 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MUHAMMAD ASLAM LTD., KARACHI through Notified Manager under the Factories Act, 1934 Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 424 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 424 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 424 (PLC) (Messrs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MUHAMMAD ASLAM LTD., KARACHI through Notified Manager under the Factories Act, 1934 Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Sharif for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 6th May, J996.
- 3. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the factory management is that the grievance notice was time‑barred by two days. The learned Labour Court found that the dismissal order was served on 25‑11‑1992 and the grievance of the worker was received by the management on 21‑2‑1993. The statutory period of three months expired on 21‑2‑1993 and notice was despatched and served on 21‑2‑1993. It was also found that the petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was also not time‑barred. The management; therefore, relies on alleged bar of limitation rather than on merits of the case. During the enquiry the Enquiry Officer was changed and the very complaint has been found to have been re‑written twice. The learned lower Court found the enquiry report to be unreliable and the worker was, therefore, reinstated.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)(4)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after, charge‑sheeting him and holding enquiry against him on ground that he misbehaved with his superior and also a Foreign Expert‑‑‑During enquiry against' employee Enquiry Officer was changed and the very complaint against employee was found to have been re‑written twice‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, rightly ordered re‑instatement of employee finding that enquiry report against employee was unreliable.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)(4)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after, charge‑sheeting him and holding enquiry against him on ground that he misbehaved with his superior and also a Foreign Expert‑‑‑During enquiry against' employee Enquiry Officer was changed and the very complaint against employee was found to have been re‑written twice‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, rightly ordered re‑instatement of employee finding that enquiry report against employee was unreliable. Malik Sharif for Appellants. Date of hearing: 6th May, J
996. This appeal is directed against the order of the First Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, allowing the grievance petition under .section 25‑A of the I.R.O. and directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed by the appellants as a Machine Operator in its factory on 13‑3‑1983. In the year. 1992 it is alleged that the same worker misbehaved with the Production Manager and one Mr. Anthony a Foreign Expert for which a show‑cause notice was issued to him. The worker appeared before the General Manager but he was suspended from service for 4 days at a time and charge‑sheeted for misbehaving with the Assistant Manager Production and Mr. Anthony. He was found guilty after a domestic enquiry and he was dismissed from service.
3. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the factory management is that the grievance notice was time‑barred by two days. The learned Labour Court found that the dismissal order was served on 25‑11‑1992 and the grievance of the worker was received by the management on 21‑2‑1993. The statutory period of three months expired on 21‑2‑1993 and notice was despatched and served on 21‑2‑1993. It was also found that the petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was also not time‑barred. The management; therefore, relies on alleged bar of limitation rather than on merits of the case. During the enquiry the Enquiry Officer was changed and the very complaint has been found to have been re‑written twice. The learned lower Court found the enquiry report to be unreliable and the worker was, therefore, reinstated.
4. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal; the order of the First Sindh Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./141/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.