1995 PLP 652 (PLC(CS))
PALAS KHAN Versus THE OCCUPIER/MANAGER, RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 652 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PALAS KHAN Versus THE OCCUPIER/MANAGER, RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 652 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 652 (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: 1995 PLP 652 (PLC(CS)) (PALAS KHAN Versus THE OCCUPIER/MANAGER, RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikharul Haq for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1995.
- 3. The case of the appellant is that he was prevented by the gate‑keeper from entering the mill premises. That during enquiry also he was not allowed to get inside the mill. He has however not been able to prove these allegations. No elaborate enquiry is required to prove absence of a worker for 10 days. The contention of the Advocate for the appellant that the enquiry being ex parte was defective has not been established.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(e) & (4)‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated after issuing him charge‑sheet and holding a domestic enquiry against him for remaining absent from duty continuously for 10 days‑‑ Employee, as alleged, had failed to prove that he was prevented by the gatekeeper from entering mill premises and that during enquiry he was not allowed to get inside the mill‑‑‑Contention that enquiry against employee being ex parte was defective was not established‑‑‑Even otherwise, no elaborate enquiry was required to prove absence of employee for 10 days‑‑‑Services of employee, thus, were rightly terminated.
Judgment & Decree
Iftikharul Haq for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1995. This appeal arises from the order of Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his dismissal from service.
2. The appellant was working in the respondent's mills as a double sider. He remained absent from duty continuously for 10 days and for this misconduct he was charge‑sheeted on 15‑12‑1991. The appellant replied to the charge‑sheet on 18‑12‑1991. A domestic enquiry was thereafter held but the appellant did not associate himself with the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty and his services were terminated.
3. The case of the appellant is that he was prevented by the gate‑keeper from entering the mill premises. That during enquiry also he was not allowed to get inside the mill. He has however not been able to prove these allegations. No elaborate enquiry is required to prove absence of a worker for 10 days. The contention of the Advocate for the appellant that the enquiry being ex parte was defective has not been established.
4. The respondent Textile Mills have neither appeared themselves nor engaged any counsel to appear. The order of the Labour Court is however maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2482/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.