1995 PLP 723 (PLC(CS))
AZIZUR REHMAN Versus M/s PAK CHEMICAL LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 723 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AZIZUR REHMAN Versus M/s PAK CHEMICAL LIMITED, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 723 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 723 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 723 (PLC(CS)) (AZIZUR REHMAN Versus M/s PAK CHEMICAL LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anwar Ahmed Junior of Abid Puri for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial Orders) Ordinance Employee who worked as "Badli" worker on a post of permanent helper for a period of four months, had become a permanent worker and his short absence for about 5 days on two occasions, would not break continuity of his service‑‑‑Services of employee, though were terminated by an order in writing giving reasons, but employee neither was given any notice nor was offered pay in lieu of that notice‑‑‑Termination of service of employee, in circumstances, was not in accordance with S.O. 12(1) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance notice‑‑‑Competence‑‑‑Employer contended that grievance notice sent by employee was defective as same was not signed by employee himself, but somebody else wrote name of employee on his behalf‑‑‑Employee was illiterate and he usually applied his thumb‑mark‑‑‑Even otherwise, notice signed by somebody on behalf of employee, would still be a notice sent by employee and same could be considered to have been signed by employee himself under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance; 1969‑‑‑Appeal was allowed and employee was ordered to be reinstated in service within 30 days of the order, Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. Anwar Ahmed Junior of Abid Puri for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th May, 1995. This appeal arises from an order of the Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance petition of the appellant worker for re instatement was rejected by the Labour Court.
2. The facts are that the appellant was appointed on 11‑8‑1990 as Badli worker on the post of a permanent helper. His services were terminated on 14‑1‑1991. He was thus continuously employed for a period of more than 3 months and he became a permanent worker. His services were terminated under Standing Order 12(3) by an order in writing, reason being that the permanent helper in whose place he had been employed had returned from leave and rejoined.
3. The appellant has admittedly worked as Badli worker for a period of 4 months. An objection had been raised that he had remained absent for about 5 days on two occasions but a short absence for any reason does not break the continuity of service. He therefore became a permanent worker by the end of 3 months.
4. The next objection is that the services of the appellant were terminated under section 12(3) by an order in writing giving reasons. However, section 12(1) applicable in case of permanent worker has not been complied with and the appellant was neither given any notice nor offered pay in lieu of notice.
5. It has then been argued that the grievance notice was not signed by the appellant himself but somebody else wrote the name of the appellant on his behalf, since the appellant was illiterate and he usually applied his thumb mark. However, the notice signed by somebody on behalf of the appellant would still be a notice sent by the appellant and this objection is without substance. This notice can be considered to have been signed, by the appellant himself under section 25‑A. The appellant being illiterate his name was written by the scribe who wrote the notice.
6. The termination of service of the appellant was not therefore in accordance with section 12(1) of the Standing Order, since no dues in lieu of notice have been paid to him. The appellant is therefore directed to be reinstated in service within 30 days. The order of the lower Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B.T/2484/Lb.S Appeal allowed.