1996 PLP 527 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD JUMMAN Versus Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LTD., BADIN
| Citation | 1996 PLP 527 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JUMMAN Versus Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LTD., BADIN |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order's) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 527 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order's) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 527 (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: 1996 PLP 527 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD JUMMAN Versus Messrs PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LTD., BADIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 1996.
- 4. Since none has appeared from Sugar Mills and their Advocate too has remained absent for want of instructions it would appear that the Sugar Mills are no longer interested in this case.
Headnotes / Summary
S.O. 15(3)
Employee who was dist1lissed from service on allegation of misconduct contended that one solitary instance of commission of mistake could not be considered to be a misconduct especial when such mistake was not mentioned under S.O. 15(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing, Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and that it had not been shown that mistake committed by him Was wilful or fraudulent or was committed dishonestly, thus he could not be awarded punishment of dismissal from service
None having appeared on behalf of employer to contradict contentions of employee, it would appear that employer was no longer interested in the case
Order of dismissal, was set aside. In circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of VIth labour Court,' Hyderabad dismissing grievance petition of the appellant and maintaining the order of his dismissal from service. The facts in brief are that the appellant was working as seasonal Cane Clerk to the respondent's Sugar Mills he issued same token No. 167 to two trollies in succession resulting in mismanagement. When this fact was brought to his notice, he corrected himself and gave 161, 167 number to the first trolly and 167‑A to the next trolly. He was asked not to leave but after expiry of his duty hours he left as usual. A domestic enquiry was conducted in which he admitted the mistake, for which he was dismissed from service. He filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that he had rightly been dismissed from service and the court, therefore, rejected the grievance petition. 2. On this date of hearing of appeal Mr. Raees Mushtaq has, remained absent. His junior Mr. Muhammad Sadiq has stated that they have no instructions and the matter may be decided in their absence. 3. Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant has pointed out that a solitary instance of commission of a mistake cannot be considered to be a misconduct. That such a mistake is not provided under Order 15(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. That it has not been shown that this mistake was wilful or fraudulent or committed dishonestly. That as such the appellant could not be given the punishment of dismissal which is provided only for the acts of misconduct enumerated under Order 15(3), Standing Orders. That even inefficient working is provided under 15(1)(ii) which is not punishable with dismissal and only fine could be levied. 4. Since none has appeared from Sugar Mills and their Advocate too has remained absent for want of instructions it would appear that the Sugar Mills are no longer interested in this case. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the dismissal of the appellant is set aside. He may be re‑instated in service within 30 days with back benefits. H.B.T./36/Lb.S Order accordingly.