1991 PLP 920 (PLC(CS))
Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus HAZOOR BUX and 6 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 920 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus HAZOOR BUX and 6 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 920 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 920 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 920 (PLC(CS)) (Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus HAZOOR BUX and 6 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raes M. Mushtaq for Appellants.
- S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the respondents and-have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.Os. 1 & 15(4)‑‑‑Promotion of workmen‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Workmen were promoted to higher grade on probation of 3 months and that period was further extended for 3 months‑‑‑Workmen after expiry of extended period of 3 months, however, were reverted back to their original posts alleging that their work was not satisfactory‑‑‑Probation period of workmen under S.O. 1 was only 3 months and there was no provision for extension of that period‑‑‑During probation period if work of probationer was not found satisfactory, he could be reverted or removed without showing any reason or without holding any enquiry‑‑‑Where probationer was reverted after six months, order of reversion was sort of stigma and in fact was misconduct‑‑‑Workmen thus could not have been reverted without holding enquiry and without giving them opportunity to show cause against their reversion.
Judgment & Decree
Raes M. Mushtaq for Appellants. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991. This appeal is directed against a single order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 8-1-1991 whereby the grievance applications of the respondents were allowed.
2. I have heard Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the respondents and-have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admitted facts of the case are, that the respondents were employed with the appellants and they were promoted to the higher grade from 1-2-1989 on probation of 3 months. The probation period was then extended for 3 months more on 29-4-1989. However, their work was not found satisfactory, therefore, they were reverted back to their original post by order, dated 29-7-1989. Under Standing Order 1, the probation period of workman is only 3 months and there is no provision for extension of the probationary period. No rules of the Employers' establishment have been produced to show any provision for extension of the period of probation. It is a settled law that during the period of probation, if the work of the probationer was not found satisfactory, he could be reverted or removed without showing any reason or without holding any enquiry. In the instant case, however, the respondents have been reverted after six months viz., after the period of probation of 3 months under Standing Order 1 had long back expired. The order of reversion on the ground of their work was not found satisfactory is sort of stigma and in fact is misconduct. As such, respondents could not have been reverted without holding enquiry as provided under Standing Order 15(4) and without giving them an opportunity to show cause against them.
4. I accordingly find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. H.B.T./1919/Lb.S ?????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.