1993 PLP 104 (PLC)
LAHORE and another Versus ABDUL REHMAN SHEIKH and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 104 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | LAHORE and another Versus ABDUL REHMAN SHEIKH and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 104 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 104 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 104 (PLC) (LAHORE and another Versus ABDUL REHMAN SHEIKH and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghazi M.A. Rashid and A.R. Arshad Malik for Petitioners
- Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Employees, admittedly were suspended about one and half months prior to service of charge‑sheets on them‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, rightly concluded that employer had violated S.O.15 of Ordinance (VI of 1968), as charge‑sheets were not served within prescribed time‑‑‑Judgment of Tribunal based on facts and law could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ghazi M.A. Rashid and A.R. Arshad Malik for Petitioners Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 26th May, 1992. This judgment shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 2671 and 2672 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts arise therein. Abdur Rehman Sheikh, respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 2671 of 1991 was employed as Stenographer in the Lahore Development Authority while Nazar Muhammad, respondent No.l in W.P. No. 2672 of 1991 was working as Senior Clerk. Their services were terminated by the petitioner on the ground that they had committed misconduct by replacing the annual confidential report of Malik Nazar Muhammad. This order dated 30th March, 1988 was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in both the petitions before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, by filing applications under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court dismissed both the applications on 7th October, 1969 holding that they were guilty of misconduct.
3. Against the order of the Labour Court Abdur Rehman Sheikh and Nazar Muhammad have filed two separate appeals which were accepted by a common judgment by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 28th January, 1991 and the respondents were ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. The ground which prevailed with the Labour Appellate Tribunal was that the respondents/employees had not been served with the charge‑sheet within the time prescribed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and that this question though raised before the Labour Court was not decided by it.
4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that neither the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, nor of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the workmen of the petitioner. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This argument has been found to be without any merits by this Court in the connected matter namely W.P. No. 2924 of 1986 wherein it has been held that both the laws apply to respondent No. 1 in both the petitions.
5. So far as the merits of ‑the case are concerned, the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is unexceptionable. It is found as a fact that although on 29th July, 1987 the employer had come to know of the misconduct and further that the respondents were suspended on 3rd of August, 1987 the charge‑sheet were served upon the respondents/employees on 15th September, 1987. On these facts the Labour Appellate Tribunal rightly concluded that there has been a manifest violation of Standing Order No. 15(a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./D‑9/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.