L993 PLP 567 (PLC(CS))
M/s. ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus RIAZ SHAHID
| Citation | L993 PLP 567 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus RIAZ SHAHID |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in L993 PLP 567 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case L993 PLP 567 (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: L993 PLP 567 (PLC(CS)) (M/s. ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus RIAZ SHAHID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sabihuddin Ahmed for Appellant.
- Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Reinstatement‑‑‑Employee had alleged that his services had been terminated verbally without any notice or holding any enquiry against him‑‑‑Version of employer was that it was employee who had deserted his work as when he could not turn up when he was called back to report on duty, his services were terminated‑‑‑In case employee really was not turning up, normal course would have been to proceed against him for absence and dismiss him from service after a due enquiry, but nothing of that sort was done by‑employer‑‑‑No charge‑sheet had been issued or enquiry was conducted against employee and there was no termination letter either‑‑ Employer also could not prove that a letter was despatched to employee to report for duty‑‑‑Employee, was rightly reinstated with full back benefits, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 1st March, 1993. The circumstances in which this appeal ordering the renstatement of the petitioner has arisen succinctly stated, are as follows:‑‑
1. The petitioner was working as a sampleman with the appellant from 1‑1‑1987 and his services came to be terminated verbally on 26‑4‑1991. On the 2nd of May, 1991 the grievance notice was sent to the respondent which was duly replied to in which it was said that it was the petitioner who had deserted his work. He was called back to report on duty lest legal action be taken against him. As the grievance of the petitioner remained un-redressed he had filed the petition.
2. The Written Reply with all its erasures and interpolations, remained unverified. It was however in line with the reply to the grievance notice and need not be reiterated.
3. The petitioner was his own witness and Anis Umar Nagda, Production Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it allowed the petition with full back benefits.
5. Nothing of any consequence could be elicited from the cross examination of the respondent, and Nagda admitted therein that no charge- sheet had been issued or enquiry had ‑been conducted against the respondent. There was no termination letter either.
6. If the respondent was really not turning up, the normal course would have been to proceed against him for absence and dismiss him from service after a due enquiry. Nothing of this sort was done. There was not even a letter despatched to the respondent to report for duty. There is therefore no reason, not to accept the version of the respondent who has been so diligently pursuing the proceeding, and once the appellant had shown during the arguments their willingness to take him back, had reported for duty on the 9th of December, 1992 last alongwith the Director of the Company from the Court.
7. The circumstances clearly make out that for reasons which need not be simulated, the respondent had been thrown out of job and now allowed to rejoin. Be that as it was the appellant who had terminated the services of the respondent unlawfully and therefore the impugned order is not open to any exception.
8. As a result the appeal is dismissed. The respondent will be entitled to the back benefits from 26‑4‑3.991 up to 9th December, 1992 when he rejoined the appellant. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2180/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.