1997 PLP 353 (PLC)
PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION through, General Manager (A&P), Karachi Versus S. ZAFAR EJAZ
| Citation | 1997 PLP 353 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION through, General Manager (A&P), Karachi Versus S. ZAFAR EJAZ |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 353 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 353 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 353 (PLC) (PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION through, General Manager (A&P), Karachi Versus S. ZAFAR EJAZ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mumtaz A. Shaikh for Appellant.
- Muhammad Tasnim for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1996.
- 6. The learned Advocate cannot give any reason why the report of the first Enquiry Officer was rejected and another enquiry was held. Very likely the second Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry to the prejudice of the worker.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑‑Workman‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by employee against his dismissal from service was resisted by employer contending that same was not maintainable as employee who was a junior officer, was not a workman‑‑‑Employee was working as Air‑Conditioner Technician and neither any body was working under him nor he was supervising work of any one‑‑‑Employee, thus was a "workman" and his pay or designation was immaterial for determining his such status. (b) Maxim‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑ Nemo debit bis vexari" (Nobody could be vexed twice for the same offence)‑‑‑When once a person was acquitted he could not be tried again and convicted‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 13‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403. (c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.Os. 8(2) & 15(3)(e)‑‑‑Dismissal from service on ground of misconduct‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after holding enquiry against him on ground that employee after availing granted leave, overstayed his leave by 17 days‑‑‑Employee had applied for extension of leave, but not in time‑‑‑Employee though was partly to be blamed for enjoying leave before getting it sanctioned, but his case was not of misconduct and was rather a case regarding grant of extension of leave‑‑‑Employee, thus was ordered to be re‑instated, but back benefits were denied as employee had failed to get leave sanctioned in time.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Tasnim for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th May, 1996. This appeal by the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation arises from an order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance application of respondent Zafar Ejaz and re‑instating him in service with back benefits.
2. According to the Steel Mills management Zafar Ejaz was a Junior Officer and not a worker in the Steel Mills, but the admitted position is that the respondent was working as Air‑conditioner technician and there was nobody working under him nor was‑he supervising the work of any one. He was therefore a de‑technical worker, the pay or designation not being material for termination of his status.
3. Zafar Ejaz remained on casual leave from 21‑6‑1992 to 25‑6‑1992. He then applied for Earned Leave from 29‑6‑1992 to 9‑7‑1992. His Casual Leave was converted into Earned Leave and he was finally to report for duty on 13‑7‑1992 but as admitted by him in his cross‑examination he reported for duty on 30‑8‑1992 and thus overstayed his leave by 17 days. The reason given by him is that he could not attend to his duties on account of his mother's illness but that appears to be a lame excuse. Nothing prevented him from getting the extension of Earned Leave in time. Mr. Muhammad Tasnim for the respondent however states that the respondent had applied for extension of leave and under Order 8(2) a reply had to be given to him in writing allowing or refusing the extension but no such reply was sent to him.
4. He has then argued that in this case there were two domestic enquiries. The first Enquiry Officer exonerated him from any liability and found him not guilty. His report was not accepted. Another Enquiry Office was then appointed. He had thus to face two trials as an accused person.
5. Mr. Mumtaz A. Shaikh for the Steel Mills is not able to satisfy the Tribunal whether the question of extension of his leave was considered of decided and whether the reply was sent to the respondent in time as required under Order 8(2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
6. The learned Advocate cannot give any reason why the report of the first Enquiry Officer was rejected and another enquiry was held. Very likely the second Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry to the prejudice of the worker.
7. Nobody can be vexed twice for the same offence. This is based or the Roman Maxim "Nemo debit bis vexari" (when once the .person was acquitted he could not be tried again and convicted).
8. This does not appear to be a case of misconduct but it is rather case regarding grant of extension of Earned Leave. The respondent was also partly to be blamed for enjoying the leave before getting it sanctioned.
9. Under these circumstances, I maintain the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court regarding reinstatement, but allow this reinstatement without any back benefits, because the respondent was responsible for facing the enquiry due to extension not having been obtained in time.
10. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed with regard to the payment of back benefits. H.B.T./137/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.