1991 PLP 732 (PLC(CS))
GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus AMIR ZAMAN
| Citation | 1991 PLP 732 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus AMIR ZAMAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 732 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 732 (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 732 (PLC(CS)) (GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus AMIR ZAMAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raees M. Mushtaque for Appellants.
- Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 1990.
- 2. 1 have heard Mr. Races M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Employee alleged that he had been verbally removed from service by employer who stated that they had not removed the employee but intended to hold enquiry on the charge‑sheet for remaining absent without leave‑‑‑Labour Court accepted grievance petition of employee on ground that witness of employer did not attend for cross‑examination and case of employee stood unrebutted‑‑‑Employee was reinstated by Labour Court‑‑‑No inquiry having been held reinstatement of employee would not debar employer from holding inquiry on the charge‑sheet issued by them to employee‑‑‑Appeal against order of Labour Court was dismissed, however, payment of back benefits to employee was to depend on the result of inquiry which employer was to complete.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, VIth Sindh Labour Court at Hyderabad, dated 17-10-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed. 2. 1 have heard Mr. Races M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was a workman employed by the appellants. He is alleged to have remained un-authorisedly absent from 3-2-1988. He was charge-sheeted on 18-2-1988. The respondent however alleged that he was verbally removed from service. The appellants on the other hand alleged that they have not removed respondent from service but intend to hold an enquiry against the respondent on the charge-sheet given to him by the appellants. The respondent has also admitted that he was asked to resume duty on 16-4-1988 but he was refused admission and was verbally removed from service. After serving grievance notice the respondent filed grievance petition.
4. The main ground on which the application was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer was that the witness of the appellants did not attend for cross examination and therefore the case of the respondent stood unrebutted. As the appellant himself admits, that he has not removed respondent from service the order of the learned Labour Court reinstating him in service does not require any interference. Admittedly no enquiry has yet been held as such reinstatement in service of the respondent would not debar the appellants from holding enquiry on the charge-sheet issued by them to the respondent.
5. With the above observation the appeal is dismissed. However, the payment of back benefits to the respondent would depend upon the result of enquiry, which the appellants are directed to complete within three months. M.Y.H./1789/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.