1996 PLP 217 (PLC)
PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS, KARACHI Versus HANZO
| Citation | 1996 PLP 217 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS, KARACHI Versus HANZO |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 217 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 217 (PLC)?
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 217 (PLC) (PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS, KARACHI Versus HANZO). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faisal Kamal for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 28th.September,1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12(3)
Termination of service-- Employee though served employer's Mills continuously for more than seven years, his services were terminated without assigning any reason and without order in writing
Employee who was a permanent worker, his services could not be terminated except under S.O. 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 by order in writing giving reasons for his termination. Muhammad Ashfaq Khan v. M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi 1995 PLC 180 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Faisal Kamal for Appellant. Date of hearing: 28th.September,1995. Heard Mr. Faisal Kamal for the Steel Mills. The respondent Hanzo son of Muhammad Khan was employed as a Chowkidar at Gharo Pumping Station from 4‑4‑1984, on the basis of daily wages at the rate of Rs.45. He continued to work there till 16‑10‑1991.
2. It was the practice of the Operational Head of Steel Mills to employ the worker just for 90 days and then terminate his service only to be re employed on the next ‑day as fresh worker. This was to avoid the regular service of the worker on permanent basis, though the nature of the duties performed by him at the 1Gharo Pumping Station were not temporary but continuous. The worker accordingly filed his grievance petition against the periodical termination of his service without assigning any reason and without order in writing. The learned Labour Court found that the respondent was a permanent worker. He was therefore, re‑instated in service with full back benefits within thirty days of the order. Against this decision Pakistan Steel Mills have preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the Steel Mills has admitted the facts of periodical termination on re‑instatement to be correct. Similar case of another such worker Muhammad Ashfaq Khan v. M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi was decided by this Tribunal and is reported in 1995 PLC
180. In that case this point was discussed at length that the respondent was a worker and his service could not be terminated except under Standing Order 12(3) by order in writing giving reasons. It was mentioned in the judgment as under:‑‑ "I accordingly find that the termination of the appellant who is a workman, orally without giving reasons for the termination is in violation of Standing Order 12(3) and as such of no legal effect."
3. The worker was accordingly re‑instated in service.
4. There is no substance in this appeal and it has not been shown that the respondent was not a worker. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2520/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.