1993 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus Messrs INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 780 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus Messrs INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 780 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus Messrs INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
- Mirza Abdur Rashid for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th May 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service on allegation that posters containing abuses 'and dire threats against some of officials of Establishment were pasted on Notice Board of Establishment by a worker on instigation of said employee‑‑‑Employee was not seen by anybody within factory premises when said posters were pasted on Notice Board‑‑‑All that had been stated in charge‑sheet and in order of dismissal of employee was that worker who had pasted posters had resorted to that vilification compaiogn at the instance of employee‑‑‑Name of employee found no place any where and nothing was to indicate even faintly that he had any motive for the happening‑‑‑In absence of any evidence against employee to establish his abetting and instigation in alleged cowardly deed, order of dismissal of employee, was indefensible and could not sustain‑‑‑Employee was reinstated with back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents. It is alleged that on the night of the 14th and the 13th of April, 1990 surreptitious posters had been pasted on the Notice Board of the Company by its workman namely Lal Muhammad. As suspicions were aroused against the petitioner also, the two of them were charge‑sheeted on 21‑4‑1990. The charge against the petitioner was only to the extent that he was an abettor and instigator in this cowardly deed.
3. The petitioner had submitted a reply which was found to be un satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was ordered.
4. Ali Akhtar Zaidi, the Enquiry Officer, had recorded the statements of Major (Rtd.) Tariq Hyder Yaldram, Gul Akhtar Hussain, who was Security Supervisor and Saeedur Rehman, Time Office Clerk and also that of the petitioner. On the basis of the Enquiry Report the petitioner came to be dismissed on 28‑7‑1990.
5. The petitioner had sent a grievance notice and as the management did not provide any relief to him, he had filed the petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed.
6. In the reply statement it was alleged that the enquiry was absolutely above board and all the allegations contained in the petition came to be denied.
7. The petitioner was his own witness and Muneeruddin Ahmed, the Factory Manager, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
8. It is nobody's case that the appellant was seen by anybody within the factory premises when the posters, containing abuse;; and dire threats against some of the officials of the respondent, had been pasted on the Notice Board. All that had been stated in the charge‑sheet and in the order of dismissal was that Lal Muhammad had resorted to this vilification campaign at the instance of the appellant.
9. The statements of Major (Rtd.) Tariq Hyder Yaldram, Gul Akhtar Hussain and Saeedur Rehman have been placed on the record. Major (Recd.) Yaldram had not a word to say against the appellant. He stopped short by saying that the notice on the board was vituperous and threatening and Saeedur Rehman only talks about the pasting on the Notice Board. Gul Akhtar Hussain mentions only Lal Muhammad. The name of the appellant finds no place here, not to say that he was the abettor or instigator. There is nothing to indicate even faintly that he had any motive for the happenings either.
10. In short there is total absence of any evidence against the appellant. It is true Ali Zaidi the Enquiry Officer did mention in his report that Lal Muhammad and the appellant had put the posters on the Notice Board and subsequently torn it away. But it is really amazing that he had the temerity to implicate the appellant when there was not a word in any context uttered against him by the three witnesses he had examined.
11. Looking to the circumstances, the order of dismissal, in the total absence of any evidence, is indefensible. Munceruddin Ahmed the Factory Manager admitted that it had come to their knowledge that the appellant was the Treasurer of the other Union (not the CBA), and may be, thereby hangs a tale. It is a shame that the appellant suffered so much for no fault of his own.
12. In the result I will set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellant had stated in his application that he was jobless and he has reiterated the contents of his application in his affidavit. He has not been cross examined on that score. He will be reinstated in service within a month with full back benefits. H.B.T./2215/Lb.S Appeal allowed.