1996 PLP 18 (PLC)
M/s. DADABHOY PADUBE LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 18 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. DADABHOY PADUBE LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 18 (PLC)?
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 18 (PLC)?
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 18 (PLC) (M/s. DADABHOY PADUBE LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Humayun for Appellant.
- Gohar Iqbal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st August, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S.O.12
Services of employee were terminated by order in writing stating that his termination was effected on account of re organisation necessitated due to lack of order and consequent losses and that services of employee had become surplus for want of sufficient work
When services of employee were terminated, seven employees who were junior to him in his trade were retained by employer in service
Evidence on record had shown that termination of employee was not effected on account of bona fide retrenchment of re-organisation, but appeared to be mala fide due to union activities of employee as he was Secretary-General of union at: the time of his termination
Employee, in circumstances, was rightly ordered to be re instated by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 31st August, 1995. This is an appeal of the management M/s. Dadabhoy Padube Ltd., arising from the order of the Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the worker Muhammad Riaz was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits.
2. Respondent Muhammad Riaz was appointed as colourman‑cum- joinder on 16‑12‑1982 in the appellants factory manufacturing sanitary ware.
3. It is the case of the appellant company that on November 12, 1989 the services of the respondent were terminated by an order in writing, stating that the termination was on account of re‑organisation necessitated due to lack of orders and consequent losses. That the services of the respondent had become surplus for want of sufficient work and they were therefore terminated with immediate effect on payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice under Standing Order 12.
4. It is on the other hand the case of the respondent that when his services were terminated seven colourmen‑cum joinders junior to him were retained in service but his services were terminated on account of union activities as he was the Secretary General of the union at the time of termination.
5. The learned Labour Court found that the facts and circumstances show that neither the job of colourman‑cum‑joinder was abolished nor had the worker become surplus.
6. The learned Labour Court accordingly found that the termination of the worker was not on account of retrenchment but it was mala fide due to his union activities.
7. Mr. Muhammad Humayun for the management has pointed out that the factory has practically been closed down and if the respondent is reinstated how can they provide him with work. In the reply to this arguments Mr. Gohar Iqbal asserts that the factory is working in full strength and the manufacture of ceramics is going on. That all the junior colourmen‑cum joinders are still working, in the same factory. He has also pointed out that even after order of reinstatement the management again terminated the services of Muhammad Riaz and the grievance petition of the respondent due to second termination is still pending.
8. This shows that the original termination was not on account of bona fide retrenchment or re‑organisation but it appeared to be mala fide due to activities of the worker since his juniors are still being retained in the factory.
9. Under these circumstances I can find no ground for interference and the decision of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2492/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.