PLC(CS) 1996

1996 PLP 558 (PLC(CS))

DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus ZAHOOR AHMED and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeal No. KAR-265 of 1994, decided on 11th March, 1996.
Honorable Judges
Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1996 PLP 558 (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal
Parties DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus ZAHOOR AHMED and another
Primary Law West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 558 (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 558 (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: 1996 PLP 558 (PLC(CS)) (DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus ZAHOOR AHMED and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)

Representation

  • Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Appellants.
  • Date of hearing: 11th March, 1996.

Headnotes / Summary

S.O. 15(3)(e)

Dismissal from service

Employee working as bus conductor in transport Corporation was dismissed from service on allegation that he remained absent from duty for one day

Absence without leave to constitute misconduct under S.O. 15(3)(e) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 should be for more than ten days

Employee, thus, could not. be dismissed from service as he remained absent from duty only for one day

Employee was rightly ordered to be re instated by Labour Court with back benefits.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(e)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee working as bus conductor in transport Corporation was dismissed from service on allegation that he remained absent from duty for one day‑‑‑Absence without leave to constitute misconduct under S.O. 15(3)(e) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 should be for more than ten days‑‑‑Employee, thus, could not. be dismissed from service as he remained absent from duty only for one day‑‑‑Employee was rightly ordered to be re instated by Labour Court with back benefits. Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Appellants. Date of hearing: 11th March, 1996. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, for the K.T.C. present. Zahoor Ahmed has remained absent though served for this hearing. Mr. Rafiq Malik for the respondent remains absent for want of instruction. He states that he does not appear for Zahoor Ahmed and has not filed power for him: The brief facts are that the respondent remained absent from duty as conductor of the K.T.C. for one day. For their misconduct he was charge sheeted and dismissed. Conductor being a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not a civil servant under the definition of Civil Servants Act. Standing Orders Ordinance is, therefore, applicable to him. Under Order 15(3) the absence without leave to constitute misconduct, shall be for more than 10 days so he could not be dismissed under Standing Orders Ordinance. The Labour Court rightly reinstated him in services with back benefits. ` I can find no ground for interference with the decision of Labour. Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. H..B.T./75/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.